


<v «4* 







V^.-<v 






.4* 





y\^v 6° 4 ..S&fc* /, 




/Jfev V ^/ : 




BRIEF HISTORY 



OP THE 

TRIAL 

nut Mil""*--"-! 
OP THE 

REV. WILLIAM A.SCOTT, D. D. 

FROM ITS COMMENCEMENT BEFORE THE LATE PRESBYTERY OP NEW 
ORLEANS, IN JULY, 1845, TO ITS " TERMINATION" BY 
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IN MAY, 1847. 

WITH 

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS AND GRAVE DISCLOSURES 
NEVER BEFORE PUBLISHED. 



BY JAMES SMYLIE, 

A MEMBER OF THE PRESBYTERY OF LOUISIANA. 



" Judgment is turned away backward, and Justice standeth afar off; for Truth is 
fallen in the street, and Equity cannot enter. Yea, Truth faileth ; and he that 
departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it dis- 
pleased him that there was no judgment" 

Isaiah lix. — an old and much neglected writer. 



NEW ORLEANS, 

PJRMJTTEn rOJR TBJB AUTHOR* 



1847. 



BRIEF HISTORY 

OF THE 

TRIAL 

OF THE 

REV. WILLIAM A. SCOTT, D. D. 

FROM ITS COMMENCEMENT BEFORE THE LATE PRESBYTERY OF NEW 
ORLEANS, IN JULY, 1845, TO ITS " TERMINATION" BY 
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IN MAY, 1847. 

WITH 

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS AND GRAVE DISCLOSURES 
NEVER BEFORE PUBLISHED. 



BY JAMES SMYLI E, 

A MEMBER OF THE PRESBYTERY OF LOUISIANA. 



" Judgment is turned away backward, and Justice standeth afar off ; for Truth is 
fallen in the street, and Equity cannot enter. Yea, Truth faileth ; and he that 
departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it dis* 
pleased him that there was no judgment.''^ 

Isaiah lix. — an old and much neglected writer. 



NEW ORLEANS, 

M* RUTTED FOR THE AUTHOR. 



1847. 



3XP93 



CONTENTS. 



TAGE . 

Epistle Dedicatory v 

Preface — showing the reasons for publishing 1 

Brief History, &c 9 

This case, not a political controversy f 10 

First step for judicial investigation — Memorial presented to the Presbytery of New 

Orleans , . 11 

Reasons for presenting the Memorial 11 

Nature and origin of the charges against Dr. Scott 12 

Inquiries made of Dr. Scott, but not fully answered 12 

First denial of Dr. Scott — a question of veracity raised 13 

A different question of veracity investigated by the Trustees and Elders 14 

Further reports against Dr. Scott 15 

Tbe Memorial for investigation, rejected by Dr. Scott's casting vote 16 

The two main charges alleging Falsehood 16 

Special meeting of Presbytery for investigation 17 

Another special meeting — the case referred to the Synod of Mississippi, of 1845... IS 
The Presbytery of New Orleans dissolved, and the case transferred to the Presby- 1 

tery of Louisiana « , , . 19 

Dr. Scott's plea to the charges of not guilty 19 

The verdict of the Presbytery 20 

Mr. Smylie's dissent, and notice of complaint to Synod .20 

Important Facts connected with the Testimony 20 

Statements of the accused admitted as Testimony 21 

His denials permitted to have the force of Testimony 21 

Efforts to prevent witnesses from testifying 22 

The Court make no allowance for the marked reluctance and partiality of wit- 
nesses 22 

Odium attempted to be cast on the Court 23 

The publication of the Trial — opposition made 23 

Mr. Smylie's complaint to Synod of 1846 23 

Reasons for prosecuting his complaint 24 

The Synod dismiss the complaint, recommending that it be carried up to the Gen- 
eral Assembly, if the complainant deemed it "important" 24 

The complaint given in full as presented to the General Assembly of 1847, with 

notes, proofs, and illustrations 25-30 

Mr. Smylie's complaint, at length, against the Synod 30-32 

Further reasons for presenting the two complaints before the Assembly, 32 

New and Grave Disclosure? in Mr. Lyon's Memorial to the Synod of 1846, 33 
Several new and palpable Falsehoods, apparently established against Br, 

Scott, by the developments of Mr. Lyon's Memorial 33-36 

1 



CONTENTS. 



Singular course of the Synod, in passing by these Disclosures 37 

The case carried up to the General Assembly of 1847 37 

These new questions of veracity furnish additional grounds for complaining to 

the Assembly 38 

The case dismissed by the Assembly, without investigation 38 

The Report of the Judicial Committee of the Assembly 39 

Remarkable reasons of the Assembly, for dismissing the case , 40-47 

Dissatisfaction manifested, at the action of the Assembly 40 

Two articles from the " Presbyterian Herald " — (found in notes,) 40-43 

Editorial article of the " Presbyterian Herald" with comments — (note,) ...... 43 

Action of the Presbytery of Louisiana, in Oct., 1847, disapproving of the course 

of the General Assembly — (note,) 44-46 

Examination of the Assembly's action — Inquiry as to their meaning in using 

the word "terminate," 47-48 

The case may, constitutionally, be carried before the next General Assembly, 48 
Proof and illustration of the next Assembly's competency to entertain the case, 

from action on the " McQueen case" — (note.) 49 

The unauthorised censure of the Presbytery of Louisiana, by the Assembly, 

respecting " the publication of the speeches," &c + 49-50 

The unanimous vote of Presbytery, against the propriety of this censure — min- 
ute of the Presbytery — (note,) 50 

What the present position of the case demands of all concerned — (note,) 51 

Opinions of the " New York Observer," and " Biblical Repertory," express- 
ed in ignorance of the facts of the case 52-53 

The celebrated Memorial of Mr. Lyon to the Synod or Mississippi, in 1846, 

— with notes and illustrations 54-73 

The facts and grave issues of veracity presented in this Memorial, known to 
Dr. Scott and his church officers for a whole year, — and yet no movement 
made to have them cleared up — (note,) 73 



EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 



TO THE REV. CHARLES HODGE, D. D., 

One of the refuted Editors of the JBbilical Repertory, and the supposed author 
of the review, in that periodical, of the proceedings of tlie 
General Assembly of 1847 : 

Rev. and Dear Sir : — I hope you will pardon me, in making a sort of 
" dedication" of this small pamphlet to you. My object is not that you may take 
it under your special patronage, but that you may give it your special attention. 
I have not the vanity to suppose you will be flattered above measure, by this 
humble mark of my distinguished consideration ; for the subject treated of is an 
unpleasant one, and will doubtless be so regarded by you, as well as by myself. 
But unpleasant subjects are sometimes important, and demand serious examina- 
tion. In my opinion, this is one of that nature ; and I shall be happy if this 
opinion shall so far meet with your concurrence, as to constrain you to pay to 
these pages the compliment of a careful perusal, and try their subject matter in 
the crucible of your capacious intellect. 

Another reason why I have thought fit to give this publication an individuality 
of direction, (if I may be allowed the expression.) by addressing it to you per- 
sonally and especially, is the fact that you were a member of our last General 
Assembly, and took a prominent and active part in its proceedings, to which, 
a consideration of your piety, talents, learning, and long and varied experience, 
may have justly entitled you. As my complaints, in the case of Dr. Scott, were 
not read to the Assembly, and consequently, as the body at large were entirely 
uninformed as to the points involved, a special responsibility may well be supposed 
to rest upon those, by whose agency, in chief, the case received, in that body, its 
singular " termination." 

Your influence was neither unfelt nor unacknowledged, by the chairman of 
the Judicial Committee, to whom my complaints were referred, as regards the 
final disposition of the case, which the committee recommended, and the Assem- 
bly, on your motion, adopted. 

Believing that this result will not contribute to promote the cause of truth, nor 
to command that justly founded respect for the proceedings of our ecclesiastical 



vi EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 

judicatories, which we should all seek to promote, I have thought it best to give to 
the public a history of this case, hoping that those who so greatly contributed to 
the present disposition of it, may be convinced, when they shall have carefully 
perused and weighed all the prominent facts and principles involved, (some of the 
most important of which are herein for the first time, fully and publicly set forth,) 
that the course they pursued, though prompted by the best intentions, was not 
based upon a well-informed judgment. 

I cannot for a moment permit myself to believe, that you acted in this matter 
in fu]l view of the facts. You were doubtless misinformed, as to the real merits 
of the case before the Assembly. To suppose otherwise, would be no com- 
pliment to your good sense, as you doubtless will agree, when you shall have 
attentively considered what is now laid before you. 

But as your official and personal influence has been prominently given to bring 
about the singular result attained,! address this publication to you, and respect- 
fully ask for it your candid attention ; while, 

In the gospel of a common Saviour, 

I am Yours, most truly, 

JAMES SMYLIE. 



REASONS FOR PUBLISHING. 



It may, perhaps, surprise some, who see this pamphlet, that a publication on this 
subject should be made by me, after such representations as were extensively circu- 
lated by the religious press, at and since the time the case of Dr. Scott was dis- 
posed of by the General Assembly, in May last. Those representations, however, 
were, in many respects, erroneous, as I shall here show ; and it is 'to correct them, 
and disabuse the public mind touching many things connected with this case, as 
well as for the reasons which will appear throughout this pamphlet, that I now give 
this publication to the world. 

The erroneous representations alluded to, were — that I was satisfied with the dis~ 
position of the case by the General Assembly — that I expressed such satisfaction to 
the Judicial Committee of that body — and that 1 agreed to let the matter rest with 
that Assembly's decision. The papers in which such views were given, in whole or 
in part, are the New York Observer, the New York Evangelist, the Louisville Pres- 
byterian Herald, and the Biblical Repertory. 

The New York Observer represents the Judicial Committee as saying that " they 
had conferred with Mr. Smylie," and he " would not object to the immediate ter- 
mination of the matter, without further trial, if the committee would take the whole 
responsibility of pursuing that course." The Observer further says : (( The Rev. Mr. 
Smylie, the complainant, states, that so far as he is concerned, the matter is now 
entirely at rest." 

TheiVeto York Evangelist says : "The Judicial Committee reported, * * * * 
recommending, that, as the testimony was very voluminous, and as Mr. Smylie 
agreed, if the Assembly would take the responsibility of dismissing the case without 
a hearing, to suffer the whole subject to rest, the Assembly should dismiss the case ; 
which was accordingly done." 

The Presbyterian Herald says: "The committee had Rev. Mr. Smylie before 
them, and advised with him whether it were not best to dismiss the case. He was 
satisfied with that disposition of it, provided the committee would take the responsi- 
bility of recommending it to the General Assembly " 

The Biblical Repertory says, in its review of the proceedings of the Assembly, 
that the Judicial Committee were of the opinion, " that if the case could be disposed 
of, consistently -with the rights of Mr. Smylie, without either remanding or adjudi- 
cating on it, all the ends of justice would be gained, and the peace of the church 
promoted. Accordingly, after an interview with Mr. Smylie, who agreed to sub- 
mit to this course,j.if the committee and Assembly would assume the responsibility of 
adopting it, they recommended to the Assembly," &c. 

At first view, it would seem somewhat surprising, that so many respectable prints 
should concur in a general representation of this matter, and yet, on one point, (in 
which my statements and pledges are attempted to be given,) should be as erroneous 
in the representation of the facts, as they are accordant in their supposed statement 
i 



REASONS FOR PUBLISHING. 



of them. This general concurrence, will, of course, be deemed by many, as primq 
facie evidence of its correctness. But I shall here show, that, on this point, these 
newspapers and the Repertory, are in error, though, as I believe, unintentionally so- 
First — The true state of the case is this : I was not satisfied with the report on 
my complaints, which the Judicial Committee made to the General Assembly, and 
which the Assembly adopted ; and I distinctly expressed my dissatisfaction to the 
committee, as will shortly appear. I handed in all my papers to the Assembly, viz : 
—my original complaint to the Synod of Mississippi, against the Presbytery of Lou- 
isiana; my modified complaint, against the Presbytery ; my complaint to the Gen- 
eral Assembly, against the Synod ; a copy of the printed minutes of the trial of Dr. 
Scott ; and a copy of the memorial of the Rev. James A. Lyon, which was presented 
by him to the Synod, in 1846. All these documents, without any of them being 
r-ead, were handed over to the Judicial Committee. 

While on my way to Richmond, where the Assembly were to meet, I fell in com- 
pany with several members, and other ministers who were not members. When 
at any time, the purpose of my attending the Assembly was introduced, I thought 
I could discover, invariably, a disapprobation of my business. When I arrived in 
Richmond, I soon discovered a general disposition among the members, to give the 
case the go-by, with the exception of the chairman of the Judicial Committee, who, 
individually, was in favor of i^raaxiding the case to the Synod, for investigation. — 
This general feeling among the members, was, I thought, somewhat surprising, inas- 
much as they were totally unacquainted with the grounds of my complaint. I at- 
tended the sittings of the Judicial Committee at all times, except when they inform- 
ed me that they desired to be alone. I had strong hope that the committee would 
recommend judicial action on the case, until I heard that the chairman of the com- 
mitte of "Bills and Overtures," (Rev. Dr. Hodge, of Princeton,) had expressed his 
opinion to the chairman of the "Judicial Committee," (Rev. Dr. Janeway,) adverse 
to judicial action. When I heard this, knowing the great influence of Dr. Hodge 
in the Assembly, I concluded that there was but little hope that any thing like the 
prayer accompanying the complaints would be granted. In the conference with the 
Judicial Committee, (to which I had been invited,) I was fearful, that, possibly, a 
wrong impression might have been made on their minds, respecting my real position 
and views, touching the final disposition of the case, which they seemed inclined to 
recommend. Not being a member of the Assembly, I had no right to speak in the 
body. The tide seemed to set so strongly against the plain constitutional action 
which the case demanded, that even the chairman of the Judicial Committee, ap- 
parently, could not withstand it, though opposed to his personal views. I concluded, 
therefore, to object to no report which should be made, deeming judicial action upon 
the case, entirely hopeless. I left the case wholly with them and the Assembly, 
with the remark, that I did not accord with the committee, in the opinion that the 
peace of the church, or its purity, would be promoted by the course proposed, (to dis- 
miss the case, without action, 1 ) and that, on them and the Assembly would rest 
the whole responsibility. I then retired to my room, and in order to guard against 
any possible misunderstanding of my position, I addressed the following note, in 
writing, to the committee : 



REASONS FOR PUBLISHING. 



3 



ReV. J J. Janeway, D. D., 

Chairman of the Judicial Committe of the General Assembly of 1847: 
After this morning's interview with the Judicial Committee,'and after having ma- 
turely weighed your proposition, with all due respect, I hereby give nccice, that 
neither directly nor indirectly do I concur with the committee, in the opinion, that 
an omission, on my part, to prosecute the compiaint, would contribute to either the 
peace or purity of the Presbyterian Church within the bounds of the Louisiana Pres- 
bytery, but the reverse. I, consequently, cannot consistently drop it; nor, would I 
have it to be considered that I expressed myself, as assenting to such a course, Blr 
remote inference, from any thing that passed before the committee, — going to im- 
ply that I assented to any thing contrary to the discipline of the church. Hence, 
my willingness, (as expressed,) to concur with the report of the committee, intended 
to be made this evening or to-morrow morning, so far as in accordance with the 

ABOVE NOTICE. 

With all due deference to the wisdom, prudence, piety, ana discretion, of the com- 
mtitee, I subscribe myself, Respectfully Yours, 

JAMES SMYLIE, 

May 25th, ] 847. Complainant. 

The committee had one or two sessions, after receiving the above note, before 
their report was completed. The report was then drawn up in its present form, and 
read to me, before the committee. On being asked, I consented to let it go in that 
form, before the House, inasmuch as I had already, in writing, definitely stated to 
the committee my position, and as I had no hope of having my clearly and 
fully expressed wishes for judicial action, (from which I never swerved,) recom- 
mended by the committee, or carried out by that General Assembly £ I submitted to 
that course, as the only thing I could do, deeming it vain, single handed and alone, 
to withstand the whole sentiment of the Assembly, of which I was not a member, 
and in whose deliberations I had no voice ; but the course recommended by the com- 
mittee, and adopted by the Assembly, for disposing of the case, has never met my 
approbation. 

The foregoing written note, I of course intended should be regarded by the com- 
mittee as expressing my final and settled opinion, on the points involved ; and I am 
nSfc aware, that at any time, before or since, either verbally or in writing, I have ex- 
pressed to any person, sentiments which in any manner conflict with these. But is 
there any thing in this note, which authorises the newspapers or Repertory to rep- 
resent me as being " satisfied " with the termination of the case, without trial, pro- 
vided it should be recommended ? — or, as pledging myself to suffer the whole subject 
"to rest," if the Assembly would take the responsibility of " dismissing the case, 
without a hearing ?" The contrary of this is plainly indicated ; and these statements 
of the press are made without authority from me, in any thing that I have said or 
written to the committee, or any one else. If, at any time, I have been understood 
to express satisfaction with, or approval of, the action of the Assembly, I have been 
misunderstood. 

SECoro — But what settles this question beyond cavil, is the very language of the 
report of the Judicial Committee on this point, This report was published at length 



4 



REASONS FOR PUBLISHING. 



in the Presbyterian, of Philadelphia, at the time the Assembly were in session.— 
That newspaper did not misrepresent my position. The others named above, which 
did misrepresent it, (though, no doubt, unintentionally,) did not publish this report, 
and perhaps the editors did not read it. This may account for the difference. This 
report sustains the position taken in my written note to the committee, and thus 
fully sustains me against the very common though erroneous representations of the 
press. The committee, in this report, say, (as printed in the official minutes,) " They 
invited Mr. Smylie to a friendly interview, in which they expressed their opinion, 
and he stated his views; He did not concur with the committee in regard to the 
probable consequences of the case being remanded to the Synod or the Presbytery ; 
* * * * DU t if the committee would, without his concurrence, assume the re- 
sponsibility of recommending to the General Assembly to terminate the case with- 
out any further trial, and the Assembly should adopt this as the wisest way of ter- 
minating it, he would submit, and feel that he had discharged a duty," &c. 

The committee do not here sustain the above named prints, in saying that I "was 
satisfied," to have an " immediate termination of the matter without further trial," 
provided the Assembly should so dispose of the case ; no — the committee merely say 
that I " would submit " to, not approve of, or be " satisfied " with, that course. I 
did "submit," most certainly, and, I trust, graciously ; what else could I do? But 
that I "'was satisfied" with, or concurred in, or "agreed" to, or approved of, that 
course, as according with my own views of what ought to have been done, I have never 
stated — nor do the committee so state — nor have the newspapers or Repertory any 
proper authority for so stating. But I have always stated the contrary; and the 
committee sustain me in that position, in their representation of my statements to 
them. The committee expressly say, that it was " without my concurrence," (of 
course, with my objection,) that they recommended to the Assembly "to terminate the 
case without further trial." They also speak of their " assuming the responsibility 
of recommending," &c. But how could there be any special " responsibility " 
in the matter, for the committee to assume, provided all parties " agreed " to, and 
were " satisfied" with, the recommendation proposed? This of itself shows that the 
report of the committee fully sustains me against the above misrepresentations of 
the press. 

Third — The report was made to the House by the chairman, on the 26th May j 
and on motion of Dr. Hodge, for its adoption, it was unanimously passed, and be- 
came the act of the Assembly. I left the House, after copying the report, and pre- 
pared to return home by the morning's boat. Dr. Chamberlain, (commissioner from 
the Presbytery of Mississippi,) called at my room in the evening, and stated to me, 
as a reason why he did not object to the report, that between the motion made for 
adoption and putting the question, Rev. Mr. Beadle, (commissioner from the Presby- 
tery of Louisiana,) inquired if Mr. Smylie was satisfied ? and that the chairman of 
the Judicial Committee replied in the affirmative. This I did not hear — neither 
question nor answer — owing to my sitting in a part of the House where it was diffi- 
cult to hear, even when general stillness prevailed ; but in the midst of bustle, such 
as prevailed after the report was read, none but those sitting near the speaker could 



REASONS FOR PUBLISHING. 



5 



hear. I deem it due to Dr. Chamberlain and to Mr. Beadle to make thia atatemen^ 
especially as the latter might honestly, under those circumstances, represent me as 
satisfied with the report, which impression, however, I am not aware that he has 
made.* From this also might arise the misrepresentations made by the public prints* 



* Since writing the above, I have learned that Mr. Beadle stated at the late meeting of the 
Louisiana Presbytery, (October 1847,) that I expressed myself " satisfied," to him and others, with 
the action of the Assembly on my complaints. No doubt, be honestly thought so. But I think, I 
have fully shown above, that it is an error, and have probably indicated, also, how he and 
others have fallen into it. 

The Presbytery, at that meeting, expressed disapprobation of the course of the General As- 
sembly, in disposing of this case, without adjudication. A certified^ copy of the Presbytery's 
minute, will be found in a note, on page 44 et seq. of this pamphlet. I was not present at the 
meeting, but was afterwards informed, that Mr. Beadle protested against the action of the Pres- 
bytery. I have obtained from the stated clerk, a certified copy of his protest, and give it as fol- 
lows : 

"Bishop Beadle presented a protest, which was received and ordered to be recorded without an- 
swer. It is as follows, viz : The undersigned begs leave respectfully, and yet solemnly, to 
protest against the action of the Presbytery in the adoption of the majority report on the minutes 
of the General Assembly, in the case of complaint of Rev. James Smylie, for the following rea- 
sons, viz. 1. Because the Presbytery was not present in the General Assembly, in any way, and 
have no cause to be aggrieved by their disposal of the case ; consequently no action is called for 
by this body. 2. Because the General Assembly did not refuse to issue the case, the complainant 
waiving his right to prosecute the complaint. 3. Because the action of the General Assembly 
was such as to give satisfaction to the parties concerned, as expressed at the time, and the further 
action of this body in the case, opens the whole subject anew. 4 Because we have no evidence 
before this body that complainant was aggrieved by the action of the Assembly in the disposal 
of the case; and if we had, there would be no call for Presbytery to take action in his behalf. 
5. Because the adoption of this report will prove highly injurious to the cause of religion, and 
tend to sever the bond of union between brethren, and to recommence the unhappy difficulties, 
which have so long hairassed and vexed the church in this case." 

[Signed,] E. R. BEADLE. 

I certify the above to be a true extract from the records of the Louisiana Presbytery at their 
sessions, held at Comite Church, East Feliciana, Louisiana, October 23d, 1847. 

Attest: BENJ. CHASE, Stated Clerk. 

As it appears from the above, that Mr. Beadle's protest was " ordered to be recorded without an 
swer," it is necessary that I should take some notice of its singular positions. 1. His first reason is, that 
" the Presbytery was not present in the General Assembly, in anyway, and have no cause to be ag- 
grieved," &c. Ihad supposed, before this, that the Presbytery of Louisiana was present by Us repre- 
sentatives, Rev. E. II Beadle, and a Ruling Elder — men, who, it was no doubt supposed, at the time of 
their election, would represent, faithfully, the sentiments of the Presbytery in this matter; but it 
seems, from the late actionofthe Presbytery, that they did not! Does Mr. Beadle, then, mean here' 
to confess the truth, that himself and the elder who were sent to the Assembly, did not justly rep- 
resent the Presbytery, and therefore, that "the Presbytery was not present in the General Assembly - 
in any way ?" Would that all men were equally candid. Mr Beadle's logic is as curious as his' 
confession is truthful. As "the Presbytery was not present in the Assembly in any way," therefore 
they " have no cause to be aggrieved" by the Assembly's " disposal of the case ;" and "no action 
is called for," &c. If Mr. Beadle will attentively consider the minute adopted, he will find that 
the Presbytery deemed the action of the Assembly a virtual subversion of the constitution of the 
church, which every minister has sworn to uphold and defend; and also, that they regarded the 
dismissal of the case without investigation, "unjust" to all concerned. All this, "clearly, i s 
sufficient cause of grief, and for " action" too; and all the Presbyteries of the church might welf 
sympathise with it, whether " present in the General Assembly, in any way," or not. 2. Mr. 
Beadle's second reason, that the Assembly " did not refuse to issue the case, the complainant 
waiving his right to prosecute the complaint," finds a sufficient answer in the body of the above 
preface, as seen in my narration of facts, my note to the Judicial Committee, and in their report 
&c. 3. The third reason, that the " action of the General Assembly was such as to give satisfac- 
tion to" the parties concerned, as expressed at the time," &c, calls for notice. Who were " the 
parties concerned?" The parties in this case were, originally, the Presbytery of Louisiana, as 
prosecutor, and Dr. Scott, as defendant. Are these the " parties" meant ? How could they have 
" expressed satisfaction at the time ?" Dr. Scott was not there ; and upon Mr. Beadle's owri 
confession, " the Presbytery was not present in the General Assembly, in any way." Neither of 
these " parties," then, could have "expressed satisfaction at the time." But, these perhaps, are 
not the parties meant. If the complainant is intended as one of "the parties concerned," the statement; 
that I " expressed satisfaction at the time," is not true, though Mr. Beadle no doubt thought it was 
I fully and.clearly expressed the contrary, as shown above. Mr. Bsadle misunder&t jod my po.-ition ' 
and no doubt misunderstood the answer of the chairman of the Judicial Committee to his in- 
quiry. But I was not a party in this case, further than as the agent in laying it before the" 
Assembly. It was no personal affair between Dr. Scott and myself, The case was taken up an^ 



6 



REASONS FOR PUBLISHING. 



of my real position. The chairman of the committee, probably, supposed that the 
point of Mr. Beadle's inquiry was, whether I consented to let the report go before 
the House in that form, and not whether I approved of the report. Such, I can 
conceive , would be his conclusion, as to the point of inquiry, from the fact that the 
report itself, as just then read, stated my want of concurrence in the course recom- 
mended in it. Immediately after the report was disposed of by the Assembly, Dr. 
Hodge, being perhaps misled by the chairman's answer to Mr. Beadle, came to me, 
and said, substantially, in a tone audible to many of the members, that the Assembly 
were greatly indebted to me, for the result to which they had arrived. I replied, that 
I felt satisfied I had discharged my duty, but that the Assembly had incurred a fear- 
ful responsibility. To an inquiry, by Mr. Beadle, afterwards, at the reporter's table 
of the Rev. Samuel I. Prime, whether I was satisfied, I replied that I was satisfied I 
had done my duty. Whenever I have been inquired of, I have made much the same 



carried on, through every stage of its progress, upon the ground, solely, of "general rumor and 
common fame." The offence charged was an offence against the whole church, against truth, 
against religion, against God. It was, therefore, properly, no contest of mine, but a matter in 
which the whole church was interested, and in which its whole character has now become involved. 
But if Mr. Beadle means that I was one party, who was the other that "expressed satisfaction at 
the time?" 1 am utterly at a loss to know whom or what he means. He says, also, under the 
third reason, that "the further action of this body," (minute adopted by the Presbytery,) " in the 
case, opens the whole subject anew." How can "this be, when the Presbytery studiously avoid ex- 
pressing any opinion upon the merits oflhe case complained of, (stating the propriety of thus avoid- 
ing it, at least twice in their minute,) and only disapprove the action of the Assembly, on the 
ground that they deemed it "unconstitutional," " unwise," and "unjust" to all concerned ? The 
truth is, since the decision of the Presbytery, many of its members have learned that important 
new testimony has been discovered, unknown to the court at the time of trial; and they were, there- 
fore, anxious that the Assembly should have investigated the matter, or secured an investigation , 
and thus upheld both the constitution and the credit of the church. 4 In his fourth reason, Mr. 
Beadle says : 1* We have no evidence before this body that complainant was aggrieved by the 
action of the Assembly in the disposal of the case." How this can be said, in a solemn protest, 
is singular, when it was known that my notice of complaint was on the records of the Presbytery; 
when it was known that I did complain to Synod; when it was known that I carried the case to 
the Assembly, a distance of many hundred miles, and attended for nine days upon its sessions, for 
the purpose of seeking by "complaint" that "redress of grievance," (See ch. of Complaints) in 
behalf of the truth, for which the constitution provides; and when it was known, that, failing 
to obtain a hearing on the merits of the case, and being obliged to "submit" to a dismissal, the 
judicial Committee reported, and the Assembly adoptt !, that the case was dismissed by their "as- 
suming the responsibility, without my concurrence." How it could be said, in a solemn protest, 
that there was "no evidence" before the Presbytery that I " was aggrieved" by the action of the 
Assembly, when all this was well known to the protestant, he being present "both in the Synod 
and Assembly, I leave him to answer. I should fee' aggrieved, truly, if I did not think that my 
past course in this matter, would not afford &t least presumptive evidence of grief on my part at 
the dismissal of the case, when -;ruth could not be vindicated, because an investigation would 
"consume four or five days' time," and would be attended with some " inconvenience," and would 
incur some " expense," and " might produce excitement," among those of delicate nerves ! This 
rcould be to me, emphatically, a cause of grief. And it is •■ause of grief to me, that our supreme 
judicatory should have dismissed so important a case for such p 'or reasons. 5. Mr. Beadle's fifth 
reason enumerates several doleful consequences, which would follow " the adoption of the report" 
of the Presbytery, touching this case. The action of the Presbytery expresses disapproval, as al- 
ready stated, believing the course of the Assembly, " unconstitutional," " unwise," and " unjust." 
It is the right and privilege of any Presbyiery, (and is very frequently the practice.) to express their 
opinions of the acts of the Assembly. It is a right, which, I presume, the Presbytery of Louisi- 
ana will always fearlessly exercise, maintain, and defend, whenever and however deemed neces- 
sary. To protest against its exercise, in regard to particular cases, as they come up, is also a right 
guarantied to every member, by the common constitution. Mr. Beadle, in this case, exercised his 
right, aud no doubt has expressed, honestly, his opinions. But how he should apprehend that 
such consequences as he has named in his fifth reason, would follow from the action of the Pres- 
bytery in this matter, when that action d >es not even hint at the merits of the case— and how ha 
should say in his third reason, that this action " opens the wh >le subject anew"— is marvellous, on 
any other supposition, than that he believes the real troth is such, that the case cannot even 
be named without producing the most thrilling perturbation in the bosoms of those who are, per- 
sonally, the most dseply in vol /e.1. Is th's really so ! ! 

[•> a 1 lition io all the oth^r reasons given above, showing the necessity for publishing a history 
u this e'-ise, I deem those furnished by Mr. Beadle's protest, as among the strongest. 



REASONS FOR PUBLISHING. 



7 



reply, never intending to convey an impression, however, directly the reverse of the 
opinion expressed in my note to the Judicial Committee, as seems to have been so gen- 
erally misunderstood by the press. The sentiments of that note, and the report of 
the committee, fully harmonise on this point, and sustain me against those misrep. 
resentations. 

I trust I have now fully " satisfied " any who may possibly have supposed, that 
my statements to the Assembly's committee, as they were attempted to be given by 
the newspapers and the Biblical Repertory, precluded me from making, without a 
violation of faith, any publication on this subject, and thus disturbing the supposed 
"rest" to which the above named journals had consigned the case, and to which 
they would make me a willing party. 

It is, in part, to correct these misrepresentations of the press, that I make this 
publication. I might, it is true, have corrected the newspapers, through the papers 
themselves ; but the Biblical Repertory, I am informed, does, not admit corrections 
of its opinions or statements to be made in its own pages. That periodical circu- 
lates extensively among the ministers and elders of our church. Its course in the 
erroneous views it has given of the case of Dr Scott , in its review of the proceedings 
of the last General Assembly, has especially constrained me to make this publication, 
in order that I might correct its errors, and relieve myself from its unjust imputa- 
tions. 

I also feel the absolute necessity of publishing, in order to meet an erroneous view 
put forth by a writer in the Presbyterian Herald of Sept. 9, 1847. The writer in- 
timates that I was a party to the commission of a " felony," in the disposition of 
this case. He says of the proceedings of the Assembly : " If his (Mr. Smylie's) com- 
plaint was not regular, the Assembly had a right to cast it out ; if regular, neither 
the Judicial Committee, nor the Assembly, had a right to consult and compound with 
any man about the suppression of the case." * * * "To compound felony, is, 
by the common law, punishable by fine and imprisonment." In answer to this impu- 
tation, by an unknown writer, I think I have shown, above, that though the forego- 
ing prints would make me a p~rty to the transaction, yet the report of the Judicial 
Committee and my statements to them, Cully acquit me of any responsibility in the 
"felony," if it was really committed. Go grave an imputation, however, which is 
likely to be credited, without denial or explanation, clearly justifies me in making the 
present publication. 

Besides the foregoing reasons, I have resolved to publish a full history of this case, 
in order that truth may be vindicated — and in order that I may be relieved from the 
unjust aspersion cast upon me, of persecuting an innocent man, and persevering in 
the course — and also, that future General Assemblies may learn wisdom, from the 
unwise course of the last. The vindication of the truth was my great object. — 
That was the reason why I complained to the Synod and to the General Assembly. 
When the Assembly dismissed the case, I conceived my duty to be done. But on 
more mature reflection, I have indulged a hope that this exposure, (necessary for 
truth's sake, and for my own sake,) may lead the highest appellate court of the 
church, in future, to agree with the wise King of Israel, in the sentiment, (and to 
act accordingly,) that " He that answereth a matter before he heareth if ; it is a folly 



s 



REASONS FOR PUBLISHING. 



and a shame unto him." I also hope, by this exposition, that those under whose 
" review" the whole case came, at least twice, may in a like case, hereafter, not be 
prevented, on account of "delicate concerns," from "remarking upon it in any 
shape," when the interests of truth are at stake, lest Isaiah should tlx upon them the 
Fame character that he gave to the " watchmen " of Israel : " They are all dumb 
dogs; they cannot bark." " They all look to their own way, every one foY his gain from 
his quarter." I hope, furthermore, that all our ecclesiastical courts, may learn from 
the history of this case, that the sacrifice op purity, for the preservation of peace, 
is but "daubing the walls of Zion with untempered mortar." 

The reasons which have prompted this publication, may be summed up, then, as 
follows: It was demanded, — 

li For self-defence, against the representation that I was "satisfied" with the 
dismissal, by the General Assembly, without securing action, of a case of such im- 
portance. The charge that I approved of such a proceeding, I consider to be one of 
the most serious that could be brought against me, as a lover of truth — to say nothing 
of the opinion of one, at least, that I should have committed a " felony," in so 
doing. 

S. For self-defence, against the charge that I have wantonly persevered in perse- 
cuting the innocent, by dragging him before the highest court in the church ; and 
thus, not only injuring him, but troubling all Israel, for no sufficient cause. 

3. For the vindication of truth, which has been sacrificed to a spurious and hol- 
low peace, by the tribunals of the church. The attentive reader will find this point 
fully sustained in the following pages. 

4. For the instruction of certain great men, who, it is hoped, may learn from the 
history of this case, to be cautious in future, how they exert the great talents, and 
extended influence, and unquestioned piety, with which they are endowed, in dis- 
posing of important cases, without adjudication. 

5. For the benefit of ecclesiastical courts, of all grades — but especially Synods and 
General Assemblies — that they may learn, that the best way to dispose of a bad 
case, is to investigate and decide upon it, rather than to dismiss it ; and that they 
may not in future apply nor prescribe a plaster, where a probe is needed. 

If those persons who have approved of the Assembly's decision, and who think 
the case ought to "rest" there, and who may perhaps think, or have thought, that 
I have been a wanton troubler of Israel in carrying the case before the higher courts 
of the church, will carefully read the following pages, they may find reason to 
change their opinion. Facts are herein set forth, (some of them for the first time.) 
of an important and startling character, of which many persons who approve of the 
present disposition of the case are entirely ignorant. When they come to be known 
and weighed, many of these persons, I am confident, will be surprised at the course 
of our ecclesiastical courts, and will, I trust, readily admit that I have had sufficient 
ground to constrain me to take the course I have pursued. I therefore commend 
these pages to the serious consideration of all who desire to see truth vindicated and 
righteousness established. 

Laurel Grove, (Tefer P. : ) Miss.; December, 1847. 



BRIEF HISTORY, *c. 



The case, of which this pamphlet proposes to give a brief history, has excited 
much public attention. This was natural, from many circumstances which need 
not here be detailed. It has been carried through the several ecclesiastical 
courts, from the lowest which could take cognizance of it, to the highest, viz : 
the late Presbytery of New Orleans, the Presbytery of Louisiana, the Synod of 
Mississippi, and the General Assembly. Though it was brought before these 
several judicatories at different stages of its progress, but one of them, (the 
Presbytery of Louisiana) rendered a decision on its merits ; and even that de- 
cision, though covering all the points which were before that body at the time, 
does'not include several other grave matters that were before the Synod, and that 
were made the subject of formal complaint to the General Assembly. Upon 
these, no investigation has been had, and no decision rendered. 

The case having at length been "terminated" by the Assembly, it may be 
proper to give to the public a concise history of the more important matters em- 
braced in it. This is rendered the more necessary, as there is abroad in the 
public mind, to some extent, a gross misapprehension of its merits, a total igno- 
rance of many of its facts, and much injurious misrepresentation of some of the 
persons who have been concerned in its investigation. Even good men, through 
ignorance or prejudice, have been found to entertain very erroneous views 
and feelings concerning the case, of which it may be wise to attempt the cor- 
rection. 

Having been alone concerned in carrying it up, by complaint, from the Pres- 
bytery of Louisiana to the Synod, and from the Synod to the General Assembly, 
the duty may perhaps appropriately devolve on me, of giving its history. I have 
waited for several months since the rising of the Assembly, that time might be 
allowed for all wrong feelings to subside, in order that the principal facts in- 
volved might receive that calm and unprejudiced consideration to which their 
importance entitles them. 

I shall begin the history of the case, with its ecclesiastical inception ; though 
it may be necessary briefly to advert to some of those circumstances which pre- 
ceded, and which occasioned, the action of the ecclesiastical tribunals, 
2 



10 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



Before proceeding, however, to the history, two preliminary remarks are ne- 
cessary : the one, to give some intimation of my design ; the other, to correct a 
very wide-spread error. 

The intimation is this : The case of Dr. Scott embraces several distinct 
charges and specifications. He is charged with " falsehood," with " unchris- 
tian and unclerical conduct," with " equivocation," with " improper spirit," and 
with having " preached sentiments contrary to the constitution of the Presbyte- 
rian Church," &c. I shall confine myself, so far as an examination of these 
different points may be demanded, to the charge of "falsehood" with its neces- 
sary adjuncts and circumstances. This was the main point under trial, and 
that which was generally deemed of the most vital consequence. The otliers 
were, for the most part, only collaterally related to this. There can be no impro- 
priety in this restriction, as the entire proceedings in the trial before the Pres- 
bytery of Louisiana have been published officially, and all who desire it may 
have access to the testimony and decision on every point involved. 

The error which needs correction is this : The idea is very prevalent, that 
this case is, substantially, a political controversy, in some shape ; that its merits 
are somehow involved in principles, or relate to parties, respecting which the 
country is or has been divided.* This is a total mistake. The chief matter 
submitted to the ecclesiastical courts, involved a simple question of veracity. 
The point to be determined was, whether the accused had made a certain state- 
ment with which he was charged — the uttering of which he had subsequently 
denied. It is true, the statement alleged to have been made, related to a public 
man, then before the people as a candidate for the Presidency of the United 
States. But the question submitted on this the main point, was one of pure vera- 
city, having no more to do with the politics or political men of our country, than 
with those of Japan. 



* What is very likely to give greater currency to this error, is the recent statement of that 
very respectable quarterly, the Biblical Repertory. In its general review of the proceedings of 
the last General Assembly, under the head, " Case of the Rev. Dr. Scott," the Repertory says : 
" This case came before the Assembly in the form of a complaint, by the Rev. James S?mylie, 
against a decision of the Presbytery of Louisiana, acquitting the Rev. Dr. Scott of certain 
charges affecting his moral and ministerial character, and growing, we believe, out of some po- 
litical controversy, the merits of which did not appear." It is not, indeed, stated here, in direct 
term^, that this case is involved in a " political controversy," or that it was evolved from one, 
though the writer states his belief of this, and thus sanctions a very prevalent and unjust im- 
pression, that the case is a mere political affair. Coming from the Repertory, this will be taken, 
in some quarters, as beyond the suspicion of mistake. The writer, moreover, does not state it 
as a mere opinion, but by the phraseology " we believe," the idea is conveyed that his belief is 
the result of testimony of some kind. I would respectfully ask the Repertory for its authority on 
this point. Besides, it is stated : " the merits of which did not appear." If it is meant by this 
that the merits of the supposed " political controversy" "did not appear" in my complaint, it is 
true ; for there were no such merits in any way pertaining to the case. But if it is meant that 
the real merits of the case on trial " did not appear," it is totally incorrect. 7 hey were 
fully set forth in my complaint, as may be seen from the complaint itself, presented in this 
pamphlet. 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



We are now ready to begin the history. The truth of every item in this 
sketch is proved by official documents, which have been carefully examined, or 
can be substantiated by unimpeachable testimony. 

MEMORIAL PRESENTED TO THE PRESBYTERY OF NEW-ORLEANS. 

On the 7th day of July, 1845, a written memorial, signed by five gentlemen, 
all of them at that time members in good standing and full communion of the 
church of which Dr. Scott was pastor, was addressed to and laid before the Pres- 
bytery of New Orleans, then in session by adjournment, from the regular semi- 
annual meeting. This memorial has been published, and need not be repeated 
here. It prayed the Presbytery to investigate certain charges, then more or 
less current in the public mind, through newspaper publications, and otherwise, 
injuring, as those gentlemen believed, the moral character and ministerial stand- 
ing of their pastor ; and " matters which," they say, " in our opinion, are calcu- 
lated seriously to affect the interests of religion in our city." After stating the 
main charge current in public rumor, (above alluded to, involving " falsehood") 
the gentlemen state : " We cannot undertake to say what the truth is, but 
leave it with you for full investigation." The memorial then refers to certain 
correspondence and cards of Dr. Scott, growing out of these rumors, some part 
of which had then been printed, which these gentlemen thought likewise re- 
quired investigation. They also called attention to that discourse, in which Dr. 
Scott was said to have preached sentiments contrary to the constitution of the 
Presbyterian Church. At the conclusion, the gentlemen say : " We present 
this memorial with pain, but under a solemn sense of duty, our object being to 
promote the interests of truth and religion, and also to afford Dr. Scott a full 
opportunity to justify himself, and establish his innocence in the premises, and 
thus humbly aid in removing those causes from which they have been and still 
are greatly suffering." 

The presentation of this memorial was the first step in this case toward 
ecclesiastical action. The memorialists appeared before the Presbytery, by 
their paper, not as accusers or prosecutors, but simply as informants, bringing to 
the notice of the proper ecclesiastical body, in a tangible form, the current ru- 
mors against their pastor, and respectfully asking an investigation. 

REASONS FOR PRESENTING THE MEMORIAL. 

Although this was the first step taken in this case before any ecclesiastical 
body, it may be necessary for the information of some readers, briefly to advert 
to some of the previous circumstances which led to this step, and to the precise 
character of the rumors embodied in this memorial. 

From the early part of August, 1844, up to November of the same year, a 
charge or report against the Hon. Henry Clay, that he had been engaged in 
playing cards on the Sabbath, within two or three years previous, Was extensively 
circulated through the country. It seems to have been particularly current in 
and about Nashville, Tenn.j and Columbus, Miss., where Dr. Scott was given as 



12 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



the man who had been understood to say he had seen Mr. Clay thus engaged. 
The Rev. James A. Lyon, of Columbus, the personal friend of Dr. Scott, af- 
firmed that he had heard Dr. Scott so state ; and Mr. L. also says, that " the 
very same report, substantially, reached this place, (Columbus) from Nashville, 
or its vicinity, representing Dr. Scott as its prime author."* In August, (12th) 
Dr. Scott was written to by Mr. Jonathan Decherd, his friend, of Columbus, and 
inquiry was made into the truth of the report. Dr. Scott replied to Mr. De- 
cherd's letter, Sept. 2d, but did not answer or make any allusion to what Mr. 
Decherd deemed the main point of inquiry, viz : relating to Mr. Clay's playing 
cards on the Sabbath. At this, Mr. D. was surprised. ( See Ms testimony, Trial, 
p. 48.) In September, this report about Mr. Clay, Dr. Scott being given as au- 
thority, was published in the newspapers in Columbus. Copies were sent to Dr. 
Scott by Mr. Lyon, the receipt of which he acknowledged. He was also writ- 
ten to on the subject early in October, by Mr. Lyon, and further publications 
were made of the report. One card, published on the 3d of that month, by 
Mr. Lyon, purported to give a somewhat detailed and circumstantial statement of 
the story of the card playing, related by Dr. Scott to him, as Mr. Lyon under- 
stood the conversation ; and in this card Mr. L. says, after giving the detail : 
" This is to the best of my recollection what I heard Mr. Scott state more than 
once." The paper containing this card was sent to Dr. Scott, and its receipt 
acknowledged in a letter to Mr. Lyon of October 9th, 1844. 

Mr. Decherd's letter of inquiry of August 12th, and the letters and publica- 
tions of September and October, above referred to, each and all, contained this 
report ; and in each and all, Dr. Scott was given as the witness to the trans- 
action reported. In none of the letters, however, which Dr. Scott wrote to his 
friends in reply, did he deny the truth of the report, viz : that he had said he 
had seen Mr. Clay playing cards on the Sabbath. Neither did he in any of these 
letters (so far as is known to the public) declare or admit the truth of the re- 
port ; while his silence on this point, (if silence there was) tended to confirm his 
friends in the belief that he had so stated. f 



*For this statement, see Mr. Lyon's memorial to the Synod of Mississippi, 1846, at the end of 
this pamphlet. This document, singular and important, will receive further notice hereafter. 

f" So far as is known to the public"— " if silence there was." Mr. Lyon, in his aforesaid memo- 
rial to the Synod, in 1846, says : " I have before me a letter in Dr. Scott's own hand writing, 
dated ' 9th October, 1844, New-Orleans,' in which he acknowledges the reception of the ' Colum- 
bus Whig,' containing the aforesaid report, charges, abuse, &c, in which he expresses himself 
strongly against the abusive editors, and complains of the conduct of Mr. Decherd in showing 
his private letter, &c. &c. ; but he does not intimate that he had been misunderstood or misrepre* 
sented." These italics are Mr. Lyon's. This letter of October 9th, was not before known to 
the public. It has never been published. If Mr. Lyon has represented it correctly, it is clear 
that it contains no denial of the report. But whether it does not contain something more than 
the mere absence of denial— whether it does not contain the full and substantial admission that 
the report was true— that Dr. Scott did so state— would be better known if the letter were pub. 
Hshed. There has been so much concealment in this whole case, that men have become unwil- 
ling to believe that grave and dark things may not be still covered up. Let this letter of Octo- 
ber 9th be given to the public, or to the proper ecclesiastical tribunal. Let the original, not a 
copy, be exhibited. 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



13 



On the 23d of October, 1844, Dr. Scott and Mr. Lyon met at the Synod of 
Mississippi, and were together nearly a week, when the matters touching this 
report, the publications, &c, were talked over between them, in different 
conversations they then had ;* but in none of these conversations did Dr. Scott 
deny the truth of the report ; while his silence confirmed Mr. Lyon in the belief 
that he had correctly related Dr. Scott's statement respecting Mr. Clay's playing 
cards on the Sabbath. While at Synod, Dr. Scott wrote again to Mr. Decherd 
touching these matters, and sent by Mr. Lyon, but made no denial of the said 
report. (See Decherd' 's testimony, Trial, p. 48.) 

During the attendance of Dr. Scott and Mr. Lyon at the Synod, two gentlemen of 
Columbus, Miss., received a letter from Mr. Clay, (in reply to one they had written 
him,) denying the charge that he had ever been engaged in playing cards on the 
Sabbath as said to have been stated by Dr. Scott. Mr. Clay's letter was sent by the 
"Clay Club" of Columbus, to a similar association in New Orleans, with the 
request that gentlemen in the latter place would show it to Dr. Scott. Two- 
gentlemen of the highest respectability, Christian Roselius and Samuel J. 
Peters, Esqrs., called in person on Dr . Scott, on the 2d of Nov., 1844, and read 
to him Mr. Clay's letter, which they had received on the previous day. During 
a conversation with these gentlemen, Dr. Scott denied to them that he had ever 
seen Mr. Clay playing cards on the Sabbath ; and denied that he had ever stated 
that he had seen him thus engaged on the Sabbath ; and affirmed that he had been 
misunderstood, &c, by Mr. Lyon. 

This was the first denial which Dr. Scott had made of this report, notwith- 
standing the repeated letters, publications, inquiries, and personal opportunities,, 
which had been afforded him on the subject, extending through a period of nearly 
three months. 

The reader will at once perceive, that here arose a direct and grave question of 
veracity, in which Dr. Scott was involved. It had been repeatedly and exten- 
sively reported and published, as coming from Mr. Lyon and others, (and finally 
published by Mr. Lyon himself,) that Dr. Scott had said that he had seen Mr. 
Clay playing cards on the Sabbath. Dr, Scott now, however, after months of 
silence on the point, under circumstances well calculated to give the report general 
credence as having emanated from him, for the first time denied that he had ever 
so stated. This, let it be remembered, was one of the main questions of veracity 
upon which a trial before the Presbytery was subsequently instituted. The 
question was not, whether Mr. Clay had ever played cards on the Sabbath ; nor 
whether Dr. Scott or any one else had ever seen him thus engaged ; but whether 
Dr. Scott had ever said he had seen Mr. Clay thus engaged ; whether he had 
formerly said what he now denied. This was the issue. It is so simple that it 
need not be confounded with any other matter. 

*Mr. Lyon, in his said memorial, speaking of this interview at the Synod between himself 
and Dr. Scott, says : " The subject was again introduced." " We conversed two or three times 
on this subject,'' &c. This agrees with the testimony of Mr. Franklin, (Trial, p. 137,) where Dr. 
Scott admitted to him substantially that he had two or three conversations on this subject with 
Mr. Lyon while at Synod. 



14 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF BR. SCOTT. 



During the month of Nov., 1844, a correspondence was carried on between 
Dr. Scott and the two gentlemen who had read to him Mr. Clay's letter, in the 
course of which another question of veracity was raised. These gentlemen 
considered their " veracity impeached " by Dr. Scott, supposing him to have 
questioned the truth of the minutes which they had made and sent to him of the 
conversation which had taken place between them ; and in consequence of this, 
they charged Dr. Scott with " duplicity of character, and entire disregard of 
truth," touching the matters in question between them. This latter question of 
veracity, is entirely distinct from the one above named, which long afterward 
came before the Presbytery, and must not be confounded with it. This question 
was not investigated by the Presbytery. After the interview and correspondence 
with Dr. Scott, these gentlemen replied to the " Clay Club " of Columbus, 
stating the result of their conference. Their letter was published in Columbus, 
and copied into the newspapers in New Orleans, in the early part of January, 
1845; and it was in this letter that Dr. Scott was charged by these gentlemen with 
"duplicity," and " disregard of truth." Soon after this letter appeared in the New 
Orleans papers, (perhaps the same day,) a meeting of the Trustees and Elders 
of Dr. Scott's church and congregation was convened, at his request, to investigate 
this charge. They examined the correspondence between the gentlemen and 
Dr. Scott, (in which the proof of the charge was said to be contained,) and came 
to the decision, " that the charge of ' duplicity of character and entire disregard 
of truth,' was not sustained by these documents." The only investigation ever 
formally instituted upon this question of veracity, was by this body of Trustees 
and Elders. Their decision, with copies of the whole correspondence out of 
which the question had arisen, was published by them in the " New-Orleans 
Commercial Bulletin," on the 16th of January, 1845. 

This investigation, (though chiefly confined to this charge of "duplicity," &c.) 
had a collateral bearing upon the other question of veracity, viz : the charge 
against Dr. Scott respecting the reported card playing of Mr. Clay, which the 
Presbytery afterwards investigated ; inasmuch as the card in which the Trustees 
and Elders published their decision, contained the statement that Dr. Scott had 
« uniformly denied " to them, " whenever interrogated, that he had accused Mr. 
Clay of playing cards on the Sabbath." No evidence was given by the Trustees 
and Elders to show that the denial was true, though they say that " in all their 
examinations they have been unable to discover any reason to believe the con- 
trary." They moreover say in this card : " Mr. Scott has also stated to them, 
that when informed of Mr. Lyon's erroneous report of his language on that 
point, (respecting Mr. Clay's card playing on the Sabbath,) which was not until 
about the 15th of October last, (1844,) he took immediate measures to correct it." 
On this point, these gentlemen seem to have been satisfied with Dr. Scott's sim- 
ple affirmation, as they give his statement without alluding to any of the " imme- 
diate measures " supposed by them to have been taken. This of itself shows 
that this investigation was not conducted in that manner which was calculated 
to satisfy the public, and which was necessary to vindicate a clergyman's 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



16 



character, when it was well known that the report in question had been permitted 
by him to go uncontradicted, for along time, amid all the inquiries, letters, pub- 
lications, and personal interviews of Dr. Scott with the very man who had' given 
his name to the public as authority. This affirmation, therefore, of Dr. Scott to 
the Trustees and Elders, about " immediate measures," presented another 
question of veracity, upon which a charge was founded in the subsequent trial 
before the Presbyterv. 

Thus matters stood in January, 1845. The publications made by the Trustees 
and Elders were noticed extensively by the newspapers throughout the country. 
Comments were made severely reflecting upon Dr. Scott. Some charged him 
with "falsehood;" others with "retracting" what he had said about Mr. Clay. 
In the month of March, Dr. Scott deemed it necessary to notice some of these 
publications . He accordingly published cards over his own signature, in Lex- 
ington, Ky., Memphis, Tenn., and Washington, D. C, denying that he had ever 
" retracted, changed, or modified, at any time or in any way, a single word or 
syllable of any tiling " that he had ever " said or written about Mr. Clay." — 
These cards, in the esteem of some of his congregation, only made matters 
worse, as they afterwards stated in their memorial to the Presbytery, and only 
served to show in their opinion a still greater need of an ecclesiastical inquiry 
into the whole affair. 

It was also rumored soon after the publications made by the Trustees and 
Elders, that several other persons besides Mr. Lyon, had heard Dr. Scott make the 
same statement in regard to Mr. Clay s card playing on the Sabbath. This 
report, on Dr. Scott's alleged authority, had first come even to Columbus, (Mr. 
Lyon states,) from Nashville, Tenn. It had also been stated in Natchez, Miss., 
as early as August or September, 1844. (Ses Mrs. Raineifs testimony, Trial, p. 
56.) In the spring of 1845, (as was rumored,) a member of the Presbytery of 
Louisiana circulated the same report, on Dr. Scott's authority, (stating that he 
believed that he had himself heard it from Dr. Scott,) by repeating it to several 
persons, viz : to three other members of the same Presbytery, to one ruling elder, 
and to several other highly respectable gentlemen who are members of the 
Presbyterian church, as all of them have frequently affirmed, and as (I am in- 
formed,) they have all made affidavit since the conclusion of the trial by the 
Presbytery. When these various persons saw Dr. Scott's denial of the statement 
about the card playing of Mr. Clay, published for the first time in January, 1845 
it naturally created surprise. The palpable contradiction between his supposed 
affirmation to so many persons, and this late and long delayed denial, became a 
common theme of remark in some portions of the country, operating extensively } 
in the absence of any explanation, to the injury of Dr. Scott's standing, and 
through him to the injury of religion. The rumors that Dr. Scott had made tho 
aforesaid affirmation were constantly increasing, carrying with them strong 
presumption of truth ; sufficiently so to call loudly for judicial inquiry. 



26 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



This was the state of affairs, when, on the 7th of July, 1845, as before stated, 
five gentlemen, members of Dr. Scott's church, sent a memorial to the Presbytery 
of New Orleans, praying an investigation into the aforesaid rumors. 

Notwithstanding the newspaper publications from Maine to Louisiana, the 
severe charges, the thousand and one reports, the unsatisfactory position in 
which some of the grave points were left which had been published by the 
Trustees and Elders, and the fact that no ecclesiastical inquiry had been made, 
still no investigation by the Presbytery was sought by Dr. Scott. This caused 
surprise to many who had calmly watched the current of events. 

PROCEEDINGS IN PRESBYTERY — THE MEMORIAL REJECTED BY DR. SCOTT'S 
CASTING VOTE. 

Under these circumstances, the five gentlemen felt it to be their duty to bring 
the subject before the Presbytery in a formal manner. The questions of veracity 
presented i n their memorial, (the only points to which attention is now directed,) 
were two, substantially as follows : 1st. That it was rumored that Dr. Scott had 
said to several persons that he had seen Mr. Clay playing cards on the Sabbath ; 
and that long afterwards he had denied ever having so stated. 2nd. That Dr. 
Scott had stated to the Trustees and Elders of his congregation, that when 
informed of the above charge against Mr. Clay, circulating upon his authority , 
which was about the 15th of October, 1844, "he took immediate measures to 
correct it ;" which measures, it was very commonly believed, he had not taken. 

These were the main points involving falsehood. The memorial was pre- 
sented and read, and referred to a committee of three. Two of this committee 
of Presbytery, including the chairman, had been of the elders of Dr. Scott's 
church, engaged in the investigation in the previous January, when the aforesaid 
denial of the report about Mr. Clay, and the affirmation about " immediate 
measures," were made. One of them was now an ordained minister. The 
other member of the committee was an elder of another church. This com- 
mittee brought in a majority and a minority report on the memorial. The former 
was signed by the two who had been concerned in the examination before the 
Trustees and Elders. It recommended that the memorial be returned to the 
gentlemen who presented it, on the ground chiefly, that as they did not appear as 
" prosecutors," it could not be entertained " without violating the Book of Dis- 
cipline." The minority report recommended, in consequence of the grave char- 
acter of the rumors embodied in the memorial, though it did " not table any 
charges," and in consequence of the " limited number of members " of the 
Presbytery, there being then but four ministers and three elders accessible, inclu- 
ding Dr. Scott, one minister being absent at the north, that the memorial should 
be " referred to the Synod of Mississippi, for their consideration and advice," and 
that the Synod should be requested to " take such measures " as they mio-ht 
« deem proper." The Synod stood adjourned to meet in Columbus, the residence 
of Mr. Lyon, who was regarded as an important witness in the case. 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OP DR. SCOTT. 



17 



Both reports having been read and accepted, it was at first moved to adopt 
that of the minority. The Presbytery consisted of seven members present, Dr- 
Scott as Moderator in the chair. After discussion, the vote was taken and 
appeared a tie. The Moderator exercised his official prerogative ; and " decli- 
ning to vote, the question was lost." This decision was a refusal to send the 
memorial to the Synod " for advice," or " consideration," or investigation if they 
should " deem proper." The majority report then came up for adoption. The 
ayes and nays again revealed a tie, the names being reversed. On this question} 
" the Moderator gave the casting vote, and the question was decided in the 
affirmative." By this decision the memorial was "rejected," and "the stated 
clerk was directed to return " it to its authors. This decision was made on the 
11th of July, 1845. 

The history of the Presbyterian Church probably furnishes few parallels to 
the position which Dr. Scott occupied in this case — presiding over the body, 
(though objection was made at the time, see published complaint of the me- 
morialists to Synod) which had been requested to institute an investigation into 
his own conduct, and giving the casting vote by which the respectful petition for 
such investigation was "rejected." This is all the more remarkable, as in his 
card " to the public " which accompanied the publication previously made by 
the Trustees and Elders, he had said : " I desire nothing but justice." " I desire 
the fullest investigation and closest scrutiny of this whole matter." Here was 
an investigation prayed for by his own church members ; and what had he to ex- 
pect but " justice " at the hands of his brethren ? 

Soon after this action of the Presbytery, the memorialists gave official notice 
that they should complain of this decision to the Synod, which was to meet in 
October. 

As was very natural, the course of Dr. Scott in rejecting the memorial, caused 
much talk and produced some excitement in the community. Some expressed indig- 
nation at his presiding and vote, while few were bold enough openly to defend it. 

SPECIAL MEETING OF PRESBYTERY IN AUGUST. 

From some cause, Dr. Scott issued a circular, as Moderator, (notwithstanding 
the above decision,) dated 26th July, convening the Presbytery in special session, 
on the 5th of August, to institute the very investigation for which the memorial- 
ists had petitioned. He had said in defence of his casting vote, at the time, (see 
his letter to the memorialists, afterwards published,) that he " was obliged to 
sustain our Book of Church Government," that he " might be sacrificed, but 
the constitution of the church must be preserved ;" and in the same letter, that 
the memorial was " rejected on account of its irregularity," the memorialists 
not appearing as " prosecutors," &c. But soon afterward, it appears, the Pres- 
bytery was called together by Dr. Scott's request and circular, although these 
gentlemen did not appear as prosecutors, " to consider, act upon, and investigate, 
in whatever way, and to whatever extent, in whole or in part, as the Presbytery 
may see fit, the rumors or charges contained in the late memorial," &c. 
3 



18 



HISTORY OP THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT* 



On the 5th of August the Presbytery assembled, and soon adjourned to the 
12th. Dr. Scott now vacated the chair, and a new Moderator was elected. He 
also presented a petition, in writing, that the Presbytery would investigate the 
rumors or charges before referred to, " contained in " the aforesaid memorial.— 
As the memorial had been dismissed by the Presbytery, and legal notice given by 
its authors that it would be carried up to the Synod by complaint, some members 
thought that the case was no longer within the jurisdiction of the Presbytery ; and 
that the Presbytery could not proceed with the investigation, unless the com- 
plaint were waived, and the memorial again presented. The memorialists were 
waited on, but declined to waive their complaint, because in their opinion the Pres- 
bytery, as then " constituted, could not, in any action it might take on the subject, 
do justice, either to Dr. Scott, to themselves, to the church, or the community," 
They gave their reasons for this opinion, at length, in a letter to the Presbytery. 
Dr. Scott's request was now called up, and a motion passed to grant it, with two 
dissenting votes, four voting in the affirmative. The minority gave notice of 
complaint to the Synod, believing that the Presbytery had no jurisdiction in the 
premises. At length, in order to promote harmony of views, it was agreed that 
the Presbytery should finally adjourn, that another pro re naia meeting might be 
called for investigation, under such circumstances that the legal objections urged 
by some members might be avoided. Dr. Scott's papers were thereupon returnee! 
to him ; the minority of Presbytery, who had given notice of complaint to Synod, 
withdrew their notice ; and the following minute was unanimously adopted : — 
" Whereas, this Presbytery has proceeded as far as it can in the business for 
which it has been called, the memorial referred to in the circular of the Moderator 
not being in the possession of this body, therefore, Resolved, That we now adjourn 
sine die." Thus ended the special meeting in August. 

SPECIAL MEETING OF PRESBYTERY IN SEPTEMBER. 

The Moderator immediately issued his circular, and the Presbytery met on the 
1st of September. A committee of investigation was appointed, who called upon 
the gentlemen who had presented the memorial in July, and obtained from them 
another paper, embodying the substance of the rumors against Dr. Scott, with 
the names of witnesses, reference to documents, &c. Those gentlemen retained 
their original memorial, and still adhered to their determination to carry it to Synod 
by complaint, in order that the principles involved in its rejection might be deter- 
mined by the higher court. From the paper obtained, however, the committee 
prepared charges and specifications ; and the case was taken up " on the ground 
of general rumor and common fame," and a committee of prosecution was 
appointed. Citations were issued to the accused and such witnesses as were 
accessible, to appear on the 29th Sept., when it was expected the trial would 
commence. The Presbytery then adjourned to the 22d. 

It should here be stated, that during the special meeting of the Presbytery in 
August, one of its ministerial members had died, leaving but four ministers in all ; 
and owing to the want of a quorum present in the session of one church, there 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OP DR. SCOTT. 



19 



were but two elders in the Presbytery ; making six members in all in the body. 
One minister was Moderator, two others had been appointed a committee of pros- 
ecution, the only remaining one was the accused ; while but the two elders and 
the Moderator were left to adjudicate the whole case. When, therefore, the 
Presbytery met on the 22d of Sept., some members thought it advisable to referthe 
case to Synod, which would meet in less than a month from the time fixed for 
trial. A resolution for such reference was introduced and finally passed, by a 
vote of three to two. The minority, (the accused and his elder,) gave notice of 
protest and complaint. 

The Presbytery met on the 29th, the time previously fixed for trial, but as the 
case had been referred, the witnesses who were present were informed that they 
were " relieved from the citations " till after the action of Synod. The Presbyte- 
ry was also in session on the 6th, 9th, and 10th Oct., but it appears from the minutes, 
that little else was done at these sessions, than to receive the protests against the 
reference of the case to Synod, and the answer to those protests* On the 10th 
Oct., this pro re nata meeting adjourned sine did. 

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SYNOD OF 1845. 

The Synod of Mississippi assembled at Columbus, Miss., on the 22d day of 
October, 1845. The ease of Dr. Scott, by reference from the Presbytery of New 
Orleans, (and the original memorial, complaint, &c, of the five gentlemen,) came 
before the body in due form. The Synod, with great unanimity, decided that the 
complaint against the rejection of the memorial should " be sustained, so far as to 
say that the Presbytery should have ordered an investigation " of the rumors which 
the memorial embodied. This was a triumphant vindication of the rights for 
which these gentlemen had contended, and a highly satisfactory approval of their 
course in presenting the said memorial. The Synod, also, by the same vote, sus- 
tained the reference of the case of Dr. Scott, viz : — by dissolving the Presbytery 
of New Orleans and reuniting it to the Presbytery of Louisiana, and transferring 
the case to the Presbytery of Louisiana thus constituted, and directing that body 
" to meet immediately," and " to take up and dispose of the case without delay.' 5 

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PRESBYTERY OF LOUISIANA. 

The Presbytery of Louisiana met at Columbus on the 24th Oct., 1845, by order 
of the Synod, to " dispose of the case." A committee of investigation, after ^ue 
examination of the papers, presented the same charges and specifications which 
had been preferred by the Presbytery of New Orleans. The same persons were 
appointed a committee of prosecution who had been chosen as such in that 
Presbytery. 

On the 28th October, the trial commenced. The Moderator having made the 
usual announcement required in judicial cases, the charges and specifications were 
read to Dr. Scott ; and " to all of the charges and specifications he pleaded not 
guilty." 

As the entire proceedings in this trial have been published by order of the 
Presbytery, it is unnecessary to repeat the charges or collate the testimony here. 



20 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



The main points involving the direct charge of " falsehood " (now under consid- 
eration,) and the circumstances of the case, have already been stated in this 
pamphlet; so that, the reader who has not seen the published trial, may gather 
from the present publication, a sufficiently intelligible view of the principal issue 
pending. Suffice it to repeat here, that the main points under the charge of 
"falsehood," were substantially, — 1st. That Dr. Scctt had said he had seen Hon. 
Henry Clay playing cards on the Sabbath ; and that afterwards he had denied that he 
h ad ever so stated. 2d. That Dr. Scott had said that when informed of Mr. Lyon's 
* erroneous" report of his language on that point, which was not until about the \5ih 
Oct., 1844, he "took immediate measures to correct it ;" which measures, it 
was believed he had not taken. 

After a session of the Presbytery, in taking testimony, for a few days in Colum- 
bus, another of some three weeks in New Orleans, and a final session of a week in 
Baton Rouge, the court on the 1 Oth January, 1846, gave a verdict on all the char- 
ges and specifications of " not guilty;" with the exception of myself, who voted 
"guilty" on both the above points involving "falsehood," and on charge third, 
alleging " improper spirit," &c; and with the exception of another member, who 
voted "guilty" on the point respecting " immediate measures," &c. From this 
decision I dissented, and complained to the Synod of Mississippi. 

I have thus given a rapid sketch of the principal facts embraced in the ecclesias- 
tical history of this case, from its commencement to the verdict rendered by the 
Presbytery of Louisiana. I believe I have given them impartially and correctly. 
The facts have been obtained from the official minutes and other documents of the 
several judicatories mentioned, and from the authentic correspondence between 
Dr. Scott and other gentlemen, &c. &c. For the most part, the correspondence 
and documents referred to, have already appeared in print in some form. 

©THER FACTS WORTHY/ OF CONSIDERATION, RELATING TO THE TESTIMONY, &C. 

Before pursuing the history of this case to the Synod of 1846, and the General 
Assembly of 1847, it may be well to call the reader's attention to a few other 
facts which occurred during its progress before the Presbytery of Louisiana. 
Some of these facts do not appear in the published trial, though they have an 
important bearing on the merits of the case ; and some which do there ap- 
pear, might not be observed by some readers of the trial, so voluminous are the 
documents and testimony published. 

1. The attentive reader of the trial may have perceived how much effort and 
time were spent by the counsel for the defence, to draw forth from witnesses, 
the opinions of the Trustees and Elders and Dr. Scott's statements to them, re- 
lating to their investigation in January, 1845. But it was, in truth, perfectly 
immaterial to the case in hand, what were the opinions then entertained or ex- 
pressed by them, or to what results that investigation arrived. It was wholly 
unofficial and informal, (ecclesiastically considered,) and their opinions or de- 
cision could not justly govern or weigh a feather with the action of a judicially 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



21 



constituted ecclesiastical body, who were bound to search for facts and evidence, 
and not to receive the mere opinions of those gentlemen, or the naked state- 
ments of the accused. This was especially so, as the great points at issue 
before the two bodies, were, for the most part, totally different. The Presbytery 
were called to investigate whether Dr. Scott hadmsde a certain statement to 
Mr. Lyon and others, about Mr. Clay's reported card playing on the !Sabb .th. 
" Before the Trustees and Elders, " says the testimony of Mr. Lea, (then a 
Trustee) "the investigation was had merely upon the question, whether certain 
correspondence had between Dr. Scott and Messrs. Peters and Roselius, con- 
victed him of an entire disregard of truth. No attempt at a general investiga- 
tion, beyond that, was made, I believe." (Trial, p. 84.) The questions at 
issue, therefore, in the investigations before the two bodies, being entirely differ- 
ent, it was foreign from the object of the Presbytery to call up the particulars of 
the former unofficial investigation. But it was permitted, as an indulgence to 
the accused ; though the fact that so much foreign matter was thus introduced 
into the case, has served to obscure the main points in the minds of many rea- 
ders, and to swell out the testimony to an intolerable length. 

2. Much of the examination for the defence, touching the matters last named, 
was an effort to draw out the statements of the accused made to the Trustees 
and Elders, and to give them the whole force of testimony. (See the testimony 
of the Trustees and Elders, passim.)* 

3. But what is more remarkable still, respecting these statements of the ac- 
cused, is the fact that the Presbytery, in giving their reasons for the decision, 
yield to them the full force of direct testimony ; and in some cases, these naked 
statements of the accused, detailed to the court through witnesses, are taken as 
sufficient proof of important points, while in some instances, documents in evi- 
dence, and public corroborating circumstances known to the court, and even 
the direct testimony of credible witnesses, all go to prove the contrary of those 
statements.! If a court may thus be allowed to receive the statements of an 
accused person in his own defence, as testimony — and especially, if his state- 
ments may set aside documentary and parole testimony of the most direct cha- 
racter — why not let the accused at once rise in court, and without the medium 
of the memory of witnesses, make those statements with his own lips ? 

4. Not only did the court thus permit the affirmative statements of the ac- 
cused, (detailed by witnesses) to set aside direct testimony, but they also permitted 
his denial (made known by witnesses) of certain ^legations, and especially his 
long-delayed denial of the ma : n charge against himself, to outweigh testimony, 

*In some instances, as will be seen in the sequel, this effort was peculiarly unfortunate to 
the accused At the time, however, th se statements seemed to favor his cause, on trial. But 
since the trial, it appears, though not then known, that palpable contradictions exist between 
some of these statements and other facts since developed, as will be hereafter shown in this 
pamphlet, on examination of Mr. Lyon's memorial to the Synod of 1846. 

tlllustrations of the truth of thia will be found on a subsequent page, in the notes on my 
complaint, &c. 



£2 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



which, without the influence of such denial, was of the most direct and positive 
character. If this be just, why not let the original plea of " not guilty" cover 
all the points of the case which the aforesaid affirmative statements did not 
reach ? The court would then be entirely relieved from the useless appendage 
of witnesses and documentary testimony. 

The foregoing points only call attention to plain facts which may be discovered 
on a careful perusal of the trial. There are others which have an important 
bearing, and deserve notice, which have never been published. 

5. That efforts were made to prevent certain witnesses for the prosecution 
from giving testimony on the main charge of lalsehood, was proven on the trial. 
It may not be known to the public, however, that the actor was a ruling elder ; 
nor that this was the man whom, without any appointment by the session, a 
strenuous effort was made, (on the motion of the accused ,) on two successive 
days, to introduce into the Presbytery as a judge in the case. The effort to give 
him a seat as a judge, met with two signal defeats ; though he was afterwards 
introduced as a witness for the defence. 

6. There is one admonition in the " Book of Discipline " to which the court 
did not give due attention. In the chapter " Of Witnesses," it is said : "Judi- 
catories ought to be very careful and impartial in receiving testimony. All per- 
sons are not competent as witnesses ; and all who are competent are not credible." 
Again it is stated that the " credibility of a witness, or the degree of credit due 
to his testimony, may be affected " by a variety of circumstances, favorable as 
well as prejudicial, to the interests of the party on trial, " to which judicatories 
shall carefully attend, and for which they shall make all proper allowance in their 
decision." Now it is notorious among all the members of the court, and Well 
known to many other persons, that several of the witnesses in this case, as 
Messrs. Lyon, Ford, and others, manifested a strong leaning to the side of the 
accused, so as to divest their testimony, in a great measure, of impartiality. The 
proof of this, is found in Mr. Lyon's reluctance to answer certain questions, 
and in his declining to produce certain letters, (see Trial, p. 33) — in Mr. Ford's 
objecting to have a certain letter he had written, relating to this case, even read 
to the court, (see Trial, p. 66,) as well as in his denying, in his testimony, what sev- 
eral members of the Court affirmed at the time they had heard him declare, and of 
which they have since made affidavit, as I have been informed ; and in the readi- 
ness with which several of the witnesses permitted the bare and long-delayed 
denial of Dr. Scott to set aside what they had frequently and publicly stated as 
having been related by him to them. Yet, in view of all these well known 
facts, touching the marked partiality of the witnesses toward the accused, the 
court did not make any, much less " all proper allowance in their decision," as 
plainly demanded by the Book of Discipline. The truth of this may be seen at 
a glance, by comparing their " reasons for the decision" (Trial, p. 2*71 et seq.) 
with the testimony above referred to. The failure of the court, in this respect, 
to give heed to the law laid down for their guidance, while they on the other 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



23 



hand admitted the bare statements of the accused as testimony, shows that the 
Book of Discipline was directly violated ; which furnished another strong and 
just ground for my complaint against their decision. 

7. One or two other facts may be noticed. During the sitting of the court in 
New Orleans, the body was subjected to such annoyances from public feeling ma- 
nifested by spectators assembled, who claimed to be the special friends of the 
accused ; such opprobrious language was used respecting certain members of the 
court; the Presbytery itself was denounced as an " Inquisition;" and so palpa- 
ble was the effort to force the members to adopt views already framed for them, 
that, as soon as the testimony was taken, the Presbytery resolved to adjourn to 
another place, where they might deliberate and make up their verdict unmolest- 
ed. To the resolution for adjournment, (the preamble alluding to the above 
facts,) strong opposition was made by the accused and his counsel ; and finally, 
notices of protest and complaint against the adjournment were entered. 

8. It may be well to know, that after the trial was concluded, although the 
Presbytery, without a dissenting vote, (the accused and his counsel having left,) 
resolved to publish the trial, and appointed a committee for that purpose, yet 
strong opposition to the publication was made by the accused and elders of his 
church, notwithstanding the accused had repeatedly said, during the progress of 
the trial, that he desired and was determined to have the whole proceedings pub- 
lished when the case should be ended. So great were the exertions made 
against it, that several members of the Presbytery who had voted for publication, 
believing at the time that the accused desired it, changed their views, and would 
have prevented the publication if possible. Even an " injunction" was spoken of 
by one member ; and it was said, that had a majority of the committee not agreed, 
finally, to go on with it, application for an injunction would probably have been 
made. The order to publish was regarded by a part of the committee as impera- 
tive, and the committee as having only executive, and not discretionary power : 
so the trial was published. 

This point may have an importance from the fact, that Mr. Lyon stated to some 
persons after he had seen the trial in print, as I have been assured, that he could 
understand why the opposition to publishing arose. Besides other reasons, the 
published testimony (or statements of Dr. Scott) enabled him to see points of a 
startling character. Some of these he has developed in his said memorial to 
the Synod of 1846, and which were in part, perhaps, the occasion of its presen- 
tation. 

MR. SMTLIE'S COMPLAINT TO SYNOD, 1846. 

The Presbytery rendered their verdict in the case, and assigned their reasons 
at length, in January, 1846. From their decision, and from their reasons for it, I 
felt bound to dissent and complain. My complaint could not come before the Sy- 
nod till its meeting in the following October. From indispensable engagements, I 
was unable to attend that meeting, I sent my complaint up, however, relying 
upon the courtesy and wisdom of my brethren to give it due attention. I was 
surprised to learn that it was dismissed, and returned to me, without any action 



24 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



upon its merits, and w-ihout iSs being even read to the Synod. Had it been duly 
considered and a direct decision rendered upon it, either to sustain or not to sustain 
it, I should have been content there to let the case rest forever. I had not then the 
remotest intention to carry the case any farther. But as the Synod returned the 
complaint to me, recommend. ng me to withdraw it, or if I could not consistently 
withdraw it, giving me permission to carry it to the General Assembly, if I should 
" dee n it important," I decided upon the latter course, and it was carried up to 
the Assembly of 1847. 

It will be necessary, in order to give a full history of the case from this point, 
to publish mv complaint. The Synod pronounced it " in some respects informal." 
They did not, however, in the minute adopted, point out in what the informality 
consisted; but as they had given their consent to its prosecution before the As- 
sembly, it seemed natural to infer that the Synod would permit a modification, 
so that, if informal, that barrier might not prevent the action of the Assembly. 
The complaint was accordingly modified ; and I deem it proper to present it here 
in the form in which it came before the Assembly. 

I felt constrained, also, to enter a complaint to the Assembly against the Synod, 
for not meeting and disposing of the case upon its merits. The reasons (or reason) 
which the Synod gave for not acting, seem utterly untenab'e. The only one 
stated in their minutes, (except informality,) will be found noticed in the complaint 
itself against the Synod. Tue " informality " alleged, as I have learned from 
those present, was of too trivial a nature to warrant inaction upon matters of 
such grave importance. 

But what, in my judgment, rendered action on the part of the Synod all the 
more imperative, and what greatly strengthened my determination to carry the 
case up to the Assembly, was the astounding developments which were made be- 
fore the Synod, in a memorial read to that body by the Rev. James A.Lyon, a prin- 
cipal witness in the case — developments which revealed darker features, if possi- 
ble, than any which had hitherto been exhibited in this case; at least, revelations 
of such a nature, opening other questions of veracity, and closing them too, that 
in the esteem of members of the Synod, it would be impossible for the accused to 
make his escape. The points developed in Mr. Lyon's memorial referred to, are 
new points, involving new issues, which were not embraced in the case tried, 
(though now seen to be intimately connected with it,) and which have never been 
adjudicated by any tribunal. Such is the nature of some of these disclosures, 
that members of the Presbytery have been known to affirm, that had they been 
aware of the facts at the time of trial, they would have been obliged to change 
their votes to "guilty," on some of the points involving the charge of falsehood. 
Why the Synod, in view of these new developments, d:d not at once direct the 
Presbytery of Louisiana to take cognizance of the matter and review the case, 
does nit appear from any official action of the body ; and, in my humble judgment, 
it will be difficult for that body to justify itself before an enlightened public. 

I will now present my complaints which were made against the Presbytery and 
Synod, as they came before the General Assembly ; and will then make such com- 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



25 



ments as the facts may seem to demand. My] original complaint made against 
the Presbytery to the Synod, and the modified one which follows, as well as my 
complaint against the Synod, were all laid^before the Assembly. 



COMPLAINT 

Of the Rev. James Smylie against the decision of the Presbytery of Louisiana, in 
the case of 'the Presbytery of Louisiana,versus the Rev. W. A. Scott, D. D.; made 
tothe Synod of Mississippi, and permitted and recommended by that body, to 
be carried directly to the General Assembly, as will appear from the following 
copy of the preamble and resolution of Synod, Oct. 31st, 1846, viz: "In some 
respects the said complaint is informal ; and as some of the difficulties connected 
with the trial of Dr. Scott have been amicably settled, which would probably in 
fluence the complainant to withdraw his complaint — 

u Resolved, That it be recommended to the complainant to withdraw his complaint, 
if consistent with his sense of duty ; if not, and he should deem it important to 
prosecute his complaint, that it be recommended to him to carry it directly to the 
General Assembly of our church, and he hereby has leave to do so." 

To the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America, to convene at the city of Richmond, Virginia, on the 3d Thurs- 
day in May, 1847 : 

Rev. and Dear Sir : — The undersigned, being a minority of the Presbytery of 
Louisiana, complained of the late decision of that body, in the case named above, to 
the Synod of Mississippi. The said Synod gave him permission, on the proviso 
that he deemed it important, and recommended the complainant to carry the case 
directly to the General Assembly : so that the Synod have predicated the privilege 
of carrying the complaint up to this Assembly directly, on the complainant's idea 
of its importance. The complainant would here remark, that it has never been 
his disposition to trouble any individual, much less an ecclesiastical body, whose 
time is precious, with what he deemed of but little importance. The case which 
he now brings before you, he deems of such importance to the interests of reli- 
gion, that it involves the character of his Presbytery and of Presbyterianism in 
the great city of New Orleans, and within the bounds of the Synod of 
Mississippi. 

As the Synod deemed the complaint, in some respects, (not specified,) to be 
" informal," and as your complainant was not present at Synod, he is left fairly 
and necessarily to infer that the Synod would permit a modification of the com- 
plaint, so that if really " informal " as presented to the Synod, that objection to 
its consideration might not impede the action of the General Assembly upon it. 
The said complaint is therefore now presented to the reverend body over which 



4 



36 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



you preside, in a modified form. The undersigned is prepared, however, to show 

the original complaint. 

Inasmuch as the decision complained of. and all the testimony and documents 
relating to the case, are printed, and are herewith laid before the Assembly for 
reference, it will not be necessary, in this complaint, to enter info any detailed 
history of the case, relative to the charges, testimony, decision, reasons of the 
court, &c. The undersigned, therefore, proceeds directly to the subject matter 
of the complaint. 

COOTLAINT, &C. 

I. The undersigned complains of the decision in the aforesaid case, upon 
Charge the First and accompanying specifications, for the following reasons — 

1st. The court did not admit the force due to the direct testimony of two wit- 
nesses, (the Rev. James A. Lyon and Mrs. James (Catherine) Rainey,) that they 
had heard the accused make the statement with which he was charged, constitu- 
ting (if true) falsehood, because the witnesses stated, that they afterward thought 
they were mistaken in what they heard the accused say, as the accused had de- 
nied it. Thus the court permitted the impression, subsequently made by the 
denial of the accused alone, to outweigh the otherwise direct and positive testi- 
mony of the witnesses. (See printed Trial, pp. 273, — 28, ans. to q. 15, and p. 61, 
arts, to q. 28.) 

2d. The court say that " some of them placed no reliance on the testimony 
of Mr. Lyon, on account of its inaccuracy and inconsistency." The court, how- 
ever, do not pretend that Mr. Lyon is inaccurate as to the main point of the 
charge to which his testimony relates, but only as regards some minor matters, 
as places, dates, &c. His testimony is positive to the main fact, that he heard 
the accused state as charged ; and in no part of his testimony does he recall the 
fact, that he so heard Dr. Scott say, &c. (See Trial, pp. 273 — 274, and Mr. 
Lyorfs Testimony.') 

3d. The court acquit the accused of the charge of falsehood, in stating that 
betook " immediate measures" to correct an alleged "erroneous report," which 
report embodied the main charge in the case ; while there was not a particle of 
evidence adduced to show that he did take such measures, or any measures, ex- 
cept from the naked statement of the accused himself, (which was no evidence,) 
and even Tie did not specify what the measures were. On the contrary, two 
witnesses, (Jonathan Decherd, Esq., and Rev. James A. Lyon,) the only persons 
who were known to have inquired of the accused respecting the truth of the said 
report, positively testify, that the accused never made the correction to them, un- 
til the time limited in the indictment ; and it was also well known to the court , 
from documents in evidence, which had been published in the newspapers at the 
time the report was in circulation, that no correction had been made, previous to 
the time required by the presentment. The court, therefore, on this point, (two 
members dissenting,) decided directly against the only evidence in the case, by 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



permitting the naked statements of the accused to outweigh the positive and une- 
quivocal testimony of two witnesses, and the notorious facts furnished by the 
published documents which were in evidence. (See Trial, pp. 27 '4,27 5 ; also 
the Testimony of Messrs. Lyon, Decherd, Lea, <^c.)* 

II. The undersigned complains of the decision upon Charge the T/iird and 
accompanying specifications, for the following reasons : — 

1st. While the court vote "not guilty" on this whole charge, they, in their 
reasons for the decision, <: except so much of this charge as accuses him (the 
accused) of improper spirit,' 1 " strongly and decidedly condemning it." The 
court thus after acquitting the accused by vole, virtually declare him guilty in 



* The only thing which bears any resemblance to a " measure," taken to correct the said re- 
port, and the only thing to which the court refer in their "reasons for the decision" on this point, 
is the note which Dr. Scott wrote Mr. Decherd from the Synod of 1844, (sent by Mr. Lyon) re- 
questing Mr. Decherd to publish Dr. Scott's letter to him of Sept. 2; or hand it to Mr. Lyon for 
publication, if deemed necessary to correct the said report. Mr. Decherd testifies that the note 
written at Synod contained no correction of it. Nor does the letter directed to be published, (the 
publication or exhibition of which was the "measure" referred to by the court,) contain any 
correction ! — and for that reason, probably, Mr. Decherd did not publish it, neither did Mr. Lyon 
— it contained no correction. (This letter is published with the Trial.) So, this was indeed a very 
singular "-measure," "immediate " or otherwise, to correct that report! And yet, the court, in 
their " reasons" (Trial, p. 275,) rely upon the contents of this letter, as the great measure taken, 
justificatory of the accused in his statement to the Trustees and Elders, that he had taken " im- 
mediate measures to correct " this report. The court say, of this letter of Sept. 2d, 1844 : " It is 
but fair to infer that the accused had a right to believe that the erroneous report of his language 
was corrected, and also to believe that Mr. Lyon himself had drawn the same conclusion from 
this letter that had been so generally drawn by others." But it now appears, from Mr. Lyon'g 
memorial to the Synod of 1846, that the accused's letter to Mr. Decherd of Sept. 2d, 1844, (which 
the court deem the "measure,") was not intended, when written, to be published, or even to be 
shown !— for in Dr. Scott's letter to Mr. Lyon of Oct. 9th, 1844, quoted in this memorial, he 
''complains of the conduct of Mr. Decherd in showing his private letter, #c, but does not inti- 
mate that he had been misunderstood or misrepresented " Mr. Lyon also says in this memorial, 
that he told Dr. Scott at Synod, that the publication of this letter had been calied for, but that it 
" had been refused on the ground that it was a private letter." These facts were of course not 
known to the court at the time of giving their "reasons for the decision," or the Presbytery 
would never have deemed this letter, (which was so "private" that it could neither be published 
nor even "shown," and the "showing" of which was "complained" of by the writer,) as the 
great "measure " to correct such a report. But how the court could so regard it, when permis. 
sion was given to publish it, is singular, while as the fact is, and was known to be at the time, the 
said letter contained no denial or correction of the said report! And yet, this is the only thing which 
exhibited even a shadow of a " measure ;" while, on the other hand, Mr. Decherd and Mr. Lyon, 
(the persons who should have been informed, if any.) both testify, that in no letters to, or conver- 
sations with them, did the accused ever "intimate" that in this matter he had been "misun 
derstood or misrepresented." And still, in the face of all this, the court, (two members dissent- 
ing,) voted an acquittal on this point !" 

HJ° There is another fact of some weight here, which the public ought to know. Mr. Lyon, (as 
I have been informed on good authority,) the particular friend of Dr. Scott in this affair, was him- 
self not satisfied that Dr. Scott had ever taken " immediate measures," as he had affirmed. — 
When Mr. Lyon saw that statement first published, it "alarmed" him, as he stated in a certain 
letter in existence. So much "alarmed" was he, that he wrote Dr. Scott, "remonstrating" 
with him ; but, as in several other instances, he seems to have received a reply which put a 
quietus on all his fears. Here are more letters which might enlighten the public. 



26 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



their reasons for their vote. This your complainant deems a manifest unfair- 
ness and injustice to the accused. 

2d. The court further state as a reason for not voting the accused guilty, (as 
they have virtually declared him to be.) in regard to the " improper spirit " man- 
ifested, that " they have received from the accused a written acknowledgment of 
his error " on this point. This " acknowledgment " the court ^accepted and 
published with their reasons, although it is a fact undeniable, that this acknowl- 
edgment was not made to the court until the parties had withdrawn from the 
house, for the court to deliberate on their verdict, and was not known to the 
committee of prosecution until the court had decided the case. This your 
complainant deems a manifest impropriety. Any acknowledgments, to have 
been deemed valid, should have been made in the presence of the parties. 4 ' 

1IL The undersigned complains of the decision on Charges First and Third 
generally — 

Because, on many important points, (in addition to those above named.) the 
court founded their decision upon statements of the accused himself ] which were re- 
garded as " evidence;" and this, too, in some cases, where these statements were 
contradicted by direct testimony, and well known facts from documents admitted 
in evidence. 

For proof of this, compare the " reasons " given for the decision of the court, 
p. 273 to p. 276, with the testimony of Messrs. Decherd, Lyon, Hadden, Frank- 
lin, and others, and with the documents published in evidence. In particular, 
compare the <! reasons " given on p. 274 with the testimony of Messrs. Frank- 
lin, Beattie, and Hadden, and it will be seen that what the court style " evi- 
dence " relating to the reply ol the accused to Mr. Decherd's letter, was nothing 
more than the bare statements of the accused himself to those witnesses — state- 
ments, which from an accused person, in his own favor, cannot in any court be 
properly regarded as " evidence," especially under the circumstances of the 
present case.f Also, on the charge about " immediate measures," &c, (p. 275 

* It may be well here to add, that this " acknowledgment " directly conflicts with the 
original plea to the charges which the accused made. The record says, that "he was called upon 
to say whether he was guilty or not guilty ; and to all of the charges and specifications he pleaded 
not guilty ." (Trial, p, 22) This "acknowledgment" was made, too, after the court had been 
at the trouble of tediously examining the numerous documents on which this charge was found- 
ed When this paper was offered, which was not until considerable progress had been made by 
the court in deliberating upon their verdict, as all the court know I objected to its reception as 
irregular, the parties being out of the house; but a formal motion was passed, though not 
recorded, that it should be received. 

f Respecting Mr. Decherd's letter and Dr. Scott's reply, the court, in their "reasons for the 
desision," say : " It appears in evidence, that on receiving this letter, the accused, as was 
his habit, made a memorandum of the date of said letter in a book kept for that purpose. Some 
ten or twelve days after, the letter being filed away and only the memorandum before him, he 
wrote his reply of Sept. 2d." This "evidence" (so called) was introduced by the defence, and 
was relied on by the court to show why the accused, in his reply, did not meet the main point of 
inquiry in Mr. Decherd's letter. But what is the "evidence" referred to. that the matters 
above stated were true? What was the precise amount of testimony on these points? 7he 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



29 



of " the reasons " of the court,) it will be seen that the court founded their de- 
cision on the conversation, in part, between the accused and Mr. Lyon at Oak- 
land. The statements of what occurred at this interview are chiefly from the 
accused himself, given to the court through several witnesses ; and yet the 
court regard these statements of the accused as "evidence," and base their 
decision (relating to the points involved,) upon it.* 

For these reasons, the undersigned feels bound to complain of the decision, 
upon charges first and third, and of an assumption of the court on charge the 
second, believing it to be contrary to the force of the real evidence, and therefore 
erroneous, and " injurious to the interests of religion," as well as "to the char- 
acter of those who pronounced the judgment." (Chap, of Complaints, Sec. III.) 

IV. Besides the foregoing reasons of complaint, which are deemed sufficient 
to call for a review of the decision and testimony in the case, or to warrant (in 
conformity to Discipline, Section III, sub. sec. 5,) " a reversal of the judgment," 
and an order for a new investigation, it has come to the knowledge of several of 
the members of the Presbytery, since their decision, that t here are several other 

naked statements of the accused to the Trustees and Elders, and by them retailed to the court! — nothing 
else under Heaven ! Now whether the above points are true or false, they could not justly be 
deemed to have been proved by such testimuny. To call it " evidence,", in a legal sense, is 
but making judicial proceedings a farce ; and yet, these points were important to the defence, 
and their proof essential to a proper acquittal. Was this " memorandum book " produced in 
court? No. How was it known that the date of this letter was entered?— that this letter had been 
" filed away ?"— or that " only the memorandum was before him when he wrote his reply ?" 
How were all these things known ? What was the proof of their reality ? Why— the accused 
6aid they were so. What! did he say so to the court, as a witness in his own case? Oh, no. 
He told A B and C, and A B and C told the court. And was that sufficient "evidence?" — 
The court said it was— and it went out to the world baptized with that name ! 

* The court say, on the point about " immediate measures," &c , in their " reasons for 
the decision,"—" It appeared in evidence that the accused became acquainted with Mr. Lyon's 
erroneous report [no sooner than] on or about the 15th October." How did this appear "in 
evidence ?" From the accused's naked statement to the Trustees and Elders, retailed to the court in 
their testimony I And this is "evidence!" Again, the court say: "It further appears in evi- 
dence, that when the accused did meet Mr. Lyon at Oakland, (at Synod of 1844,) after exchanging 
salutations, the first question he asked him was : ' What is all this fuss about at Columbus ?' 
Mr. Lyon in his reply told the accused that it was all dead, showed evident mortification at 
having got the name of the accused in the public prints, and apologized for the agency he had 
had in the matter." And how did all this appear "in evidence," when the interview was 
between Dr. Scott and Mr.Lyon only? Why, Mr. Lyon so testified. But that isonlyone witness. 
Oh ! Dr. Scott is the other. But does he testify in his own defence ? Why, not exactly ; but 
he tells the story to the Trustees and Elders, and they tell it to the court— and then it be- 
comes " evidence!"— proof as strong as Holy Writ. And this is the kind of testimony on 
which the court base their decision of "not guilty" — the naked affirmations of the person 
on trial for falsehood respecting his previous affirmation on the very point in question !— and 
which they introduce by the formal statement : t " It appears in evidence:'' If Dr. Scott's 
simple averments on this point are to be taken as " evidence "—proof sufficient— lhat his 
previous averments touching the : same point were true, and if the court had acted 
consistently on all the other points of the case, and had received his affirmations and deni- 
als as sufficient, the whole case would have been wonderfully simplified*— witnesses might 
have been entirely dispensed with— the accused could have made his statements to the court 
—and then, the testimony would have been direct, and the "evidence" overwhelming! 



30 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



witnesses who are able to give such testimony as would fully establish the above two 
charges. (First and Third.) It is not, however, practicable to have this new 
testimony taken by the present General Assembly. 

In view therefore of the principles involved in this case, and especially in consid- 
eration of the new and important witnesses, recently discovered, whose testimo- 
ny, it is confidently believed, will throw much light on the case, your complain- 
ant believes, that truth and justice to all concerned, will be best promoted by 
"reversing the judgment," and sending the case back to the Presbytery of 
Louisiana, for an immediate investigation and trial de novo. 

Your complainant, therefore, prays the Assembly, (standing as regards this 
case in the place of the Synod,) to issue an order to the said Presbytery of Lou- 
isiana, to the effect that a trial de novo, of the matters herein complained of, (on 
the ground stated, and especially in the view of new testimony,) may be had as 
speedily as practicable. 

And as in duty bound your complainant will ever pray. 

JAMES SMYUE. 



COMPLAINT 

Of Rev. James Smylie to the General Assembly against the Synod of Mississippi, 
To the Moderator of the General Assembly of the 

Presbyterian Church in the United States : 
Rev. and Dear Sir : — In addition to his complaint against the Presbytery of 
Louisiana, the undersigned feels also constrained to complain of a recent decision 
of the Synod oi Mississippi, upon his complaint against that Presbytery. 

The Synod declined to act on the merits of the said complaint, and suggested 
its withdrawal. The Synod also gave permission, if the complainant thought 
it of sufficient "importance," to carry it up directly to the Assembly. 

The undersigned complains of the Synod for not acting directly upon the 
said complaint against the Presbytery, by either sustaining or not sustaining it, 
for the following reasons : 

I. The case was a plain one, involving no abstruse principles of discipline or 
doctrine, to determine which, required the wisdom of the whole church repre- 
sented in the General Assembly. The question was simply one of fact, which 
the Synod were competent to settle, and should have settled, without bringing 
the case before the whole church. 

II. The only reason given by the Synod, for recommending the entire with- 
drawal of the complaint against the Presbytery, was, " the amicable settlement " 
of a difficulty between the Presbytery of Louisiana and the Presbytery of Tom- 
beckbee. But that difficulty did not arise out of the decision of the Presbytery 
of Louisiana complained of, had no connection whatever with that decision, and 
of course its settlement could be no valid reason for withdrawing the complaint. 

III. Another reason why the undersigned complains of the action of the 
Svnod.is, that developments were made before the Synod, in a memorial to that 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



81 



body, by the Rev. James A. Lyon, a member of Synod, and a principal witness 
for the prosecution, in the case before the Presbytery of Louisiana, of such a 
character, as to show that a further investigation was demanded. These devel- 
opments were so intimately connected with the original charges alleged in the 
case, and with the subject matter of the complaint, (bringing to light entirely 
new and important points,) that they furnished a new and strong reason why the 
Synod should have acted upon the complaint, and also why the Synod should 
have both reversed the decision, and ordered the Presbytery to investigate the 
new allegations made in the said memorial. A brief statement of some of the 
points will suffice to show the character of these developments: — 

1st. In the course of the trial, Messrs. Franklin and Beattie positively testify, 
(see Trial, pp. 142, 208,) that the accused stated to the officers of his church, 
(the witnesses being of the said officers,) in January, 1845, that he was not 
aware of his omission to reply (in his letter of Sept. 2d, 1844,) to the main point 
of inquiry, (respecting the Sabbath card playing, &c.,) in Mr. Decherd's letter of 
August the 12th, 1844, until that omission was pointed out to htm by the said offi- 
cers in January, 1845. But in the memorial aforesaid, Mr. Lyon states, that he 
wrote to the accused, in November, 1844, calling his attention to the same omission, 
and asking him, why he had not replied to thai point in Mr. Decherd's letter. — 
That memorial also states, that the accused wrote to Mr. Lyon in reply, under 
date of November 28th, 1844, giving his reasons for the said omission. There 
appears then, a palpable inconsistency between the statement of the accused, to 
the officers of his church, in January, 1845, and his knowledge of the said omis- 
sion, as brought to his notice by Mr. Lyon, in November previous, and respecting 
which, the accused gave his reasons, in the said letter to Mr. Lyon. This 
point plainly demands investigation. 

2d. It is repeatedly stated in the course of the trial, on the authority of the 
accused, that he first became aware of the " erroneous report of the language," 
attributed to him in the first and main charge, about the " 15th of October, 1844." 
But this memorial states, that a newspaper publication of the said report wa3 
made in September previous, and was immediately sent to the accused by Mr. 
Lyon, and that the accused wrote Mr. Lyon, under date of October the 9th, 1844, 
acknowledging the receipt of the publication containing the alleged " erroneous 
report but, in this letter, gave no intimation that said report was incorrect. 

3d. In the testimony of Mr. Lyon certain letters were referred to by him, 
which were supposed to have a bearing upon the main charge against the ac- 
cused. These letters were called for by the prosecution, but refused by Mr. 
Lyon. At this point in the case, the accused stated to the court, that he had 
" been favored with the perusal of these letters — that he (the accused) knew 
their contents, and that he was very anxious that they should be brought into 
Presbytery, and that he would do all he could to bring them before the body."— 
The accused wished this his statement recorded, which was done, and may be 
found on page 33 of the printed trial. But in the said memorialj Mr. Lyon 



32 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



states, that he withheld the said letters from the court, because cf the positive 
opposition of the accused to have one of them produced, which withholding, af- 
terwards, met the " most cordial commendation " of the accused. Here ap- 
pears an implied and palpable contradiction between the statements of the ac- 
cused to Mr. Lyon on the one hand, and to the court on the other, respecting 
his anxiety to have the said letters exhibited. This point is a grave one, and 
calls for investigation. 

Besides the foregoing, there are other points in the said memorial, which 
equally demand inquiry at the hands of the proper tribunal. Yet this docu- 
ment was before the Synod, and all these grave points were passed over by the 
body. The omission of the Synod to order an investigation of them, constitutes, 
in the judgment of the undersigned, a proper ground of complaint, inasmuch as 
the points themselves are of a grave character, and are closely interwoven with 
the case which was before the Presbytery of Louisiana, the decision upon which 
was the ground of complaint to the Synod. 

It may not be improper for the undersigned to state to the General Assembly, 
what he thinks truth and justice demand in the premises, and what will be en- 
tirely satisfactory to himself. He dares not ask the Assembly to come to a de- 
cision upon the merits of the case involved in this complaint. This would 
occupy more of the Assembly's time than they probably can bestow, as the doc- 
uments are voluminous, and the case somewhat complicated. But in view of all 
the facts herein set forth, and from their intimate relation to the original case, the 
undersigned earnestly prays the Assembly to send these matters down to the 
Presbytery of Louisiana, (as the Synod should have done,) for an immediate in- 
quiry into the allegations made, in the aforesaid memorial of Mr. Lyon, to the 
Synod of Mississippi, that a full judicial investigation of them may be had, in 
order that the truth may be brought to light, and righteousness may be vindica- 
ted. The Presbytery can, if the Assembly deem it wise, unite in one case, de 
novo, all the matters contained in both complaints of the undersigned upon the 
subject. 

That the General Assembly would thus determine, your complainant prays, 
and as in duty bound, will ever pray. 

JAMES SMYLIE. 



The reader will sufficiently perceive, from the first of the foregoing complaints 
and the notes, the chief grounds of my complaint against the decision of the 
Presbytery, though they are here presented in a different form from that in which 
they appeared before the Synod. 

The memorial of Mr. Lyon, in which the new questions of veracity are devel- 
oped, calls for further notice, which I will briefly give at the risk of a seeming 
repetition, (though only an amplification,) of a part of the latter complaint. The 
history of this memorial is contained within itself, though it may be well to 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



33 



advert to it here. Mr. Lyon felt aggrieved at the reports which had reached him 
respecting the comments of Dr. Scott's counsel upon his testimony at the time 
of trial, and opened a correspondence with the counsel. This memorial consists, 
chiefly, of a portion of that correspondence. It was laid before the Synod by 
Mr. Lyon, for advice respecting the proper mode of redressing the injury he felt 
himself to have received from the speech of the counsel. It was referred to a 
committee, who reported answers to Mr. Lyon's specific questions touching that 
point. 

The developments made in this paper respecting the case of Dr. Scott, seem 
to have been only incidental to Mr. Lyon's main purpose in presenting it ; though 
Mr. Lyon states, respecting these disclosures : " Such a history of this affair as 
justice to myself will require me to make, will do my particular friend, Dr. Scott, 
no good, but might do him much harm." Whatever might have been the main 
object of Mr. Lyon, however, in presenting this paper, it was the imperative duty 
of the Synod to have ordered an immediate investigation into its grave charges 
against Dr. Scott. That they did not — that they passed over the whole in si- 
lence — has tended to forfeit the confidence, extensively, which wise and discreet 
men, who know the facts, have hitherto reposed in ecclesiastical judicatories of 
the Presbyterian Church. That the public may be able to judge of the justice of 
this feeling, I ask attention to some of the facts stated in that memorial, as they 
bear upon other facts contained in the testimony adduced on the trial. 

Before comparing these conflicting statements, it may be well to inform the 
reader that at Mr. Lyon's request, the Synod, (as I have learned from some of 
those present,) with great unanimity, ordered his memorial to be published, though 
subsequently the resolution was rescinded. Then, in answer to Mr. Lyon's in- 
quiry, whether he or any other member of Synod could have permission to publish 
it on his own responsibility, the Moderator answered in the affirmative, no one dis- 
senting. It is on this ground that I now publish a certified copy of that document, 
the original of which is on file in the archives of Synod. It will be found at 
length at the end of this pamphlet. 

NEW AND GRAVE DISCLOSURES IN MR. LYON's MEMORIAL. 

1. The first point in this document which I notice, respects the "omission" 
in Dr. Scott's reply to the Decherd letter. The facts are these. On the 12th of 
August, 1844, Mr. Decherd, of Columbus, wrote Dr. Scott, stating : " It is report- 
ed here upon the authority of your name, that the Hon. Henry Clay was engaged 
at a game of cards upon the Sabbath day, and during the last two or three years. 
Will you be good enough to write me at this place, if such is the fact, naming the 
time and place where he was so engaged." This was every thing in the letter 
relating to tins inquiry. Dr. Scott replied under date of Sept. 2d, 1844. In his 
reply he touches every point in the inquiry except the main point, viz : that re- 
lating to " the Sabbath." When these letters came before the Trustees and 
Elders for examination in January, (1845,) they were surprised that in Dr. Scott's 
reply he had omitted to answer the inquiry respecting " the Sabbath," which 
5 



B4 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



they conceived to be the main point. He stated to them, in explanation, (so 
Messrs. Franklin and Beattie, of the Elders, testified on the trial,) " that he was 
not aware of having made the omission alluded to, until it was pointed out by the 
officers of his church." (See Trial, pp. 142, 208.) This exhibits one state- 
ment of Dr. Scott, respecting that " omission." 

In Mr. Lyon's memorial we find another statement of Dr. Scott's touching 
that omission, which it will be impossible to reconcile with the foregoing. Mr. 
Lyon states that as soon as he was informed by Dr. Scott that he had misunder- 
stood him relative to Mr. Clay's playing cards on the Sabbath, (which was by 
Dr. Scott's letter of Nov. 4th, 1844,) he immediately wrote Dr. Scott, asking him 
" to explain," among other things, " why he did not fully answer Mr. Decherd's 
letter." Mr. Lyon states : "lhave before me a letter from him (Dr. Scott,) da- 
ted 1 November 28th, 1844, New Orleans' in which he incloses Mr. Decherd's letter, 
and explains why he did not answer it fully." 

Between these statements of Dr. Scott there is so clear an inconsistency as to 
place their author in a most unenviable dilemma. Dr. Scott is inquired of by Mr. 
Lyon in November, why he omits in his letter of Sept. 2d, to answer Mr. Dech- 
erd's letter of August 12th, on a certain point. He replies by letter in November, 
giving the reason why he omitted to answer that point. In January folloiving, Dr. 

Scott is inquired of by the Trustees and Elders, respecting the same omission. 

He replies, as two of them testify, that lie icas not aware of his having made the 
omission, until it was then pointed out by the officers of his church. 

These statements are palpably irreconcilable. Is it at all possible that the one 
made in January by Dr. Scott can be true, provided Mr. Lyon's statement is true ? 
Can any man believe that when Dr. Scott made that declaration to the Elders in 
the fore part of January, he had forgotten Mr. Lyon's inquiry and his own written 
reply of the 28th November ? Credat Judceus apella. 

2. Another point respects the time when Dr. Scott was first informed of the re- 
port against Mr, Clay, circulating on his authority. Some of the Trustees and 
Elders testified on the trial, that Dr. Scott stated to them in January, 1845, that 
he first became aware of Mr. Lyon's " erroneous " report of the language attri-* 
buted to him in the main charge on trial, " about the 1 5th Oct.," 1844. But, (to 
say nothing of Mr. Decherd's letter of inquiry of Aug. 12th,) Mr. Lyon in his 
memorial states, that he took pains " to apprize Dr. Scott of all that was going 
on here," (Columbus,) that 45 the first newspaper publication " (26th Sept., 1844,) 
containing the report attributed to Dr. Scott, "was sent to him so soon as it came 
out." Mr. Lyon further states that he " also sent" Dr. Scott his " card, which 
came out in the next paper, and with it. a letter on the subject, calling his at- 
tention particularly to the whole difficulty.'' 1 To confirm this, Mr. Lyon states 
in his memorial, that he has in his possession, "a letter in Dr. Scott's own hand 
writing, dated l 9th October, 1844, New Orleans? in which he acknowledges the 
reception of the 6 Columbus Whig,' containing the aforesaid report, charges, 
abuse, &c. # — in which he expresses himself strongly against the abusive editors, 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



3d 



and complains of the conduct of Mr. Decherd, in showing his private letter, &c. 
&c— but he does not intimate that he had been misunderstood or misrepresented." 

It appears from this showing, that the time when Dr. Scott actually became 
aware of the existence of the said report attributed to him, in its public news- 
paper form, and by letter from Mr. Lyon, was long previous to the date named 
by him to the Trustees and Elders. Indeed, (passing by his reply to Mr. Decherd 
of Sept. 2d.) he " acknowledges " the information by letter to Mr. Lyon, as early 
as "Oct. 9th." The information was given in a previous J " letter " from Mr. Lyon, 
" calling his attention particularly to the whole difficulty ; ' — and yet, it seems, 
he gave no hint of even any mistake in the matter ! — and what is worse, if pos- 
sible, denied to his officers, even a knowledge of it till about the 1 5th October ! 

It is not improbable that this letter of Mr. Lyon, and Dr. Scott's reply of Oct. 
9th, 1844, could they be made public, would shed additional rays, either of light 
or darkness, on this singular affair. As these letters are so intimately connected 
with this case, is it not due to truth that they should be published ? 

3. The next point disclosed in Mr. Lyon's memorial, exhibits one of the most 
humiliating of the many humiliating scenes, which the successive revelations in the 
history of this case have yet brought to light. During the examination of Mr. 
Lyon, he testified to the existence of certain letters in his possession, which, it was 
thought, would throw light on the main charge against Dr. Scott. The letters 
were called for by the prosecution. Mr. Lyon declined to produce them, on the 
ground that they were " private letters," &c. Considerable discussion arose 
among the members of the court, in the course of wmich Dr. Scott made a state- 
ment of which he requested a record to be made. It may be found on page 33 of 
the printed trial, in the following words : — " Here Mr. Scott stated that he had 
been favored with the perusal of these letters — that he knew their contents — and 
that he ivas very anxious that they should be brought into Presbytery — and that he 
would do all he could to bring them before the body." This is the side of the 
picture exhibited to the court at the time of trial. The memorial of Mr. Lyon 
presents the other side. After repeating in his memorial the reasons given in 
his testimony for withholding the aforesaid letters, viz : that they were " private," 
&c, he says : " But there is one reason yet behind, more potent than any of the 
preceding. It is this : When Dr. Scott arrived in Columbus, previous to the 
commencement of his trial, I took him to my study and exhibited to him, confi- 
dentially, these very letters, and told him, that notwithstanding I felt under no 
obligations whatever to produce them, and was confident my enemies in this 
place would try to misrepresent one of them to my injury, yet after all, for his 
sake, if he desired it, I would take upon myself the responsibility and produce 
them. He did not decide at that time, but afterwards desired that I should pro- 
duce one of the letters, and withhold the other which detailed the account of the con- 
versation had with himself. I explained to him why this could not be done. I 
again exhibited the letters to him, and he once more perused their contents, said 
that one of them might be used to his injury by his enemies, and advised me decided- 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



ly and emphatically, not to produce them. And in obedience to this advice, as 
well as my own sense of propriety, I pursued the course I did, which afterwards 
received his most cordial commendation. These, sir, are the simple facts in the 
case ; and should they be called in question, which I do not for a moment expect, 
I have no witness to establish them ; but the revelations of the judgment day, to 
which I appeal, will verify them just as I have stated." 

This disclosure scarcely needs any comment. That this point reveals a pal- 
pable falsehood, resting upon the head of one or the other of these gentlemen, is 
too plain to admit of doubt. Mr. Lyon's statement seems to me to carry on its 
face an air of truth; and it is presumed that Dr. Scott will not venture to meet 
it with a public denial. On the supposition that it is true, how awful was the po- 
sition assumed by Dr. Scott, when deliberately rising in his place before the court 
which was sitting in judgment upon his conduct, he solemnly assured the mem- 
bers that "he was very anxious" to have these letters "brought into Presby- 
tery," and that "he would do all lie could to bring them before the body;" white, 
only just before this, he had " decidedly and emphatically advised " the man who 
had them in possession, " not to produce them !" — and what face must he have 
put on, when, the letters having been withheld from the court " in obedience to 
this advice," and the accused and witness having retired from the tribunal togeth- 
er, Dr. Scott assured the witness that his course in withholding them, "received 
his most cordial commendation !" O/ temporal Ol mores I 

A considerate public will never be satisfied while this matter rests in its present 
position. Ought not these letters to be made public? Although, on the trial, Mr. 
Lyon withheld them, as they were " private," yet now, it seems, he was even 
then willing "to take the responsibility, and produce them," but was prevented 
by a regard to the unwillingness of Dr. Scott. The real reason, then, (or in his 
own words, the " more potent reason,") for withholding them, Mr. Lyon did not 
give in his testimony ! That " reason," he now coolly says, was "yet behind 1" 
What disgraceful collusion between the accused and this witness ! — unknown to 
the court at the time, but revealed as soon as the witness found it necessary to de- 
fend himseif against the assaults of the counsel for the accused ! It is no marvel 
that Mr. Lyon should say in his memorial : " Such a history of this affair as jus- 
tice to myself will require me to make, will do my particular friend, Dr. Scott, no 
good, but might do him much harm." It is a marvel, however, if Mr. Lyon ex- 
pects that " justice " to himself will or can be done by such partial revelations as 
these. He has disclosed just enough to place himself and " his particular friend " 
in a most melancholy predicament. Whether he can relieve himself or his friend 
by further disclosures, he perhaps best knows ; though, of his knowledge of this, 
from what he has already exhibited, there is room for doubt ; for every attempt, 
hitherto, seems only to have revealed a deeper deep yet unsounded. But of this 
he may rest assured : the public cannot do him "justice," until all shall have 
been made knoicn. There may be yet much behind the curtain — numerous letters 
and facts — which Mr. Lyon must disclose, before he can relieve himself of the 
awkward position in which his present developments have placed him. 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



37 



It is unnecessary to call further attention to the disclosures of this memorial. — 
The reader will perceive, from the foregoing, some of the points which constitu- 
ted an additional reason why I deemed it absolutely indispensable to prosecute 
my complaint before the Assembly, and also to complain of the Synod for not 
ordering an investigation into this new matter. 

To many men of discriminating minds, both in and out of the church, it has 
been matter of wonder, that when such disclosures as the foregoing came before 
so respectable a body of men as compose the Synod of Mississippi, they should 
have given the subject a complete go-by, without taking a single step toward 
even an inquiry into these new issues. These men, they knew, had taken a 
solemn ordination vow, " to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of 
the gospel, and the purity and peace of the church, whatever persecution or 
opposition might arise unto them on that account." But here were matters seri- 
ously compromiting the church's "purity " in the conduct of those who minister 
at her altars ; and it were worse than idle to suppose that her " peace " could be 
promoted while such scandal were permitted to pass without even an attempt at 
removal; When men were told that the Synod had silently winked at these 
things, they were astounded. They had hitherto placed too much reliance on the 
integrity and firmness of our higher ecclesiastical judicatories to believe it. But 
they could not avoid the conclusion ; and the consequence has been, a 
serious abatement of confidence in the ministry, and a most serious inju- 
ry to the cause of pure and undefiled religion. Talk as we may, and cry 
t: peace, peace, when there is no peace," with however stentorian a voice, still 
there is a sterling common sense in the christian community, as well as among 
men of the world, which will not silently brook such palpable acquiescence in the 
subversion of truth. The scriptures say of a " Bishop," (and the doctrine may 
well be applied to the action of a body of " Bishops,") " Moreover he must have 
a good report of them which are without ; lest he fall into reproach and the snare 
of the Devil." (1st Tim. 3 : 7.) 

I can readily acquit some portion of the Synod of culpable neglect of duty, on 
the ground of being ignorant of the bearing of these disclosures upon the merits 
of the case, from the fact that when called for, the reading of my complaint was 
refused. But quite a number of members could make no such plea. They saw, 
they felt, they acknowledged, as I have been assured, the serious and startling 
nature of these revelations ; and from what I have learned, it is to my mind clear, 
that it was the gravity of the points in question, and the delicacy, unpleasantness, 
and responsibility involved in taking any measures for an inquiry, and the odium 
which might be visited from some quarters, which prevented those who did un- 
derstand the case, from making any official movement toward an investigation. — - 
Whether this furnishes a sufficient justification, I leave the public to judge. 

THE CASE BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1847. 

I have already stated, that the disclosures made in Mr. Lyon's memorial, fur- 
nished additional reasons for carrying the case of Dr. Scott to the Assembly. 



38 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



In my complaint against the Synod, as will be seen, I called the Assembly's at- 
tention to several points brought to light in that memorial. The reader will 
perceive, that, after setting forth the facts and reasons in my two complaints, I 
requested the Assembly to send the whole case back to the Presbytery of Louisi- 
ana, for a re-investigation, de novo. This I deemed the best course, as, 1st, 
from the length of documents and testimony in the case, and the amount of other 
business before the Assembly, I was convinced that that body could not give the 
matter due attention. This was, in my judgment, the right course, 2d, as the 
new matter should first come before the Presbytery, as the court of original ju- 
risdiction. 

The reasons why I wished the subject touched at all — the reasons why I com- 
plained to the Synod and Assembly — have already been stated. They are, in 
brief, 1 . That I deemed it of vast importance that the whole truth should be known. 
2. I had information of important new testimony respecting the original main 
charge. 3. That the new questions of veracity, brought to light by Mr. Lyon's 
memorial, and which had never been investigated by any tribunal, might be sub- 
jected to judicial scrutiny. 

This, it seemed to me, was nothing more than a fair course, and I deemed it 
an imperative duty to pursue it. I had strong hope that the Assembly would see 
the importance of taking some step for such an investigation as would vindicate 
the truth, and satisfy the just demand of a large portion of the christian commu- 
nity in the southwest. I soon saw enough, however, to convince me, on my way 
to, and after my arrival in Richmond, where the Assembly met, that influences 
from some quarter had already been brought to bear upon some distinguished 
minds in the Assembly, having the effect to give them a biassed and decided di- 
rection against acting on my complaint, while as yet these same good men, so 
influenced^ must have been totally ignorant of the grounds on which my com. 
plaint was founded ! Even one distinguished member of the Assembly, thus 
profoundly ignorant, went so far as to give his opinion to the chairman of the 
Judicial Committee, that the complaint should be not at all encouraged. 

The complaints were not read before the Assembly. Hence it may be said, as 
of the Synod, that most of the members were unaware of the merits of the case. 
The large and respectable Judicial Committee, however, to whom the two com- 
plaints were referred, must have seen, if they examined the documents, that the 
points at issue were important. But under the influences at work, I am willing 
to grant that they saw, possibly, " as through a glass darkly." The chairman of 
that committee, however, I have reason to know, was from the first, in favor of 
remanding the case to the Synod for investigation. This accounts for that sen- 
tence in their report, which it has puzzled many to understand. They speak of 
"three ways " in which the case "might be disposed of." The third was to 
send the case back to the Synod. The committee then add : " This, it is deem- 
ed, would be the wisest course." This expresses what I understand to have 
been the individual opinion of the chairman to the last. 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SOOTT. 



Many have been as much astonished at the course of the Assembly, as at that 
of the Synod ; and the confidence hitherto reposed in the wisdom of the supreme 
judicatory of the Presbyterian Church, as evinced in dismissing this case without 
securing an investigation, has been greatly impaired in the minds of some of our 
best members in the southwest, whose knowledge of the merits of the case may 
exceed that of the members of the Assembly, and whose judgment in the matter 
it were an unpardonable vanity to affect to despise. 

That the reader may understand the action of our highest judicatory on the 
subject, I deem it best to give the Assembly's report upon the case, in full. It is 
as follows : 

" The Judicial Committee reported as in order, case No. 4, and their report 
was adopted, and is as follows, viz : 

i( The Judicial Committee report, that they have received and examined a 
complaint of the Rev. James Smylie, from a decision of the Presbytery of Lou- 
isiana in the case of the Rev. Dr. Scott, which has been brought in a regular 
manner up to this General Assembly. 

" The complaint was first presented to the Synod of Mississippi, who recom- 
mended the complainant, if he could not conscientiously withdraw the complaint, 
to carry it up to the General Assembly. Mr. Smylie, feeling it to be his duty to 
prosecute his complaint, has brought it up to this supreme judicature of our 
church. 

" There are three ways in which this complaint might be disposed of. 

" 1. The Assembly might take it up, wade through the testimony, receive the 
new testimony, that, it is understood, the complainant wishes to offer, to decide the 
case. But against this course, besides other difficulties, it may be mentioned as 
a very serious one, that the bare reading of the records of the Presbytery would 
consume four or five days. 

" 2. Another mode might be adopted, by referring the case for consideration to 
the Presbytery of Louisiana, who might be directed to take any "new testimony 
that should be properly offered. 

" 3. Or the General Assembly might remand the case to the Synod of Missis- 
sippi, to hear the complaint, and dispose of it in a regular and constitutional 
manner. This, it is deemed, would be the wisest course. 

" But, were either of these modes adopted, it would require a great consumption 
of time, and subject the judicature that might adjudicate on the case to great in* 
convenience, and no inconsiderable expense ; and instead of resulting in practical 
good, might produce great excitement and consequences injurious to the peace 
and edification of an important section of our church. The testimony is so 
voluminous, that to form a correct judgment on it, would require a retentive mem* 
ory, patient attention, diligent comparison of its several parts, as well as a dis* 
criminating mind. It is to be regretted that the Presbytery sanctioned by their 
authority the publication of the speeches on both sides of the question. 



40 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



" The committee after carefully deliberating on the subject were unanimously 
of the opinion, that if the case could be disposed of, consistently with the rights 
of Mr. Smylie, without remanding it to either of the inferior courts, and without 
the Assembly's adjudicating on it, all the ends of justice would be gained and the 
peace of the church would be promoted. They therefore invited Mr. Smylie to 
a friendly interview, in which they expressed their opinion, and he stated his 
views. He did not concur with the committee in regard to .the probable conse- 
quences of the case being remanded to the Synod or the Presbytery ; and stated 
that in prosecuting his complaint he was influenced by no personal feelings 
against Dr. Scott, but by a desire that truth might be sustained, justice done to all 
concerned, and the constitution of our church upheld ; but if the committe would, 
without his concurrence, assume the responsibility of recommending to the 
General Assembly to terminate the case without any further trial, and the Assem- 
bly should determine to adopt this as the wisest way of terminating it, he would 
submit, and feel that he had discharged a duty, which, while it was troublesome 
and painful, had put him to no inconsiderable expense. 

" It is due to the Rev. Mr. Smylie to say, that the committee believe, that in 
prosecuting his complaint, he has been prompted by a sense of duty and a regard 
to the constitution of our church, and governed by what he deemed its purity 
and best interests required. 

" The committee recommend to the Assembly, the adoption of the following 
resolution : 

" Resolved, That in view of the representation of the case given in the above 
statement by the Judicial Committee, of the voluminous nature of the testimony, 
and of the difficulties attending the case, and believing that the interests of the 
church will be best promoted by adopting the course recommended by the com- 
mittee, and being willing to assume the responsibility of acting accordingly, this 
General Assembly do hereby terminate this unhappy case without any further 
judicial trial." 

This report is in some respects a singular document. It will be seen by re- 
ferring to my complaints, that I did not wish or expect the Assembly " to decide 
the case " upon its merits, for the very reason the committee give — that it " would 
consume" so much of the Assembly's time. I should have been satisfied if 
either of the other modes named had been adopted, and should then have hoped 
at least, that " all the ends of justice would " have been " gained, and the peace 
of the church promoted." 

The reasons given for not recommending its disposal in any of the three ways 
named, have struck many persons as very remarkable.* 

* A writer in the " Presbyterian Herald;' of July 29, 1847, published at Louisville, Ky., speaks 
of the action of the Assembly, as follows : — 

The Case of Rev. Dr. Scott. — Messrs. Editors: I wish to say a word in regard to the action 
of the General Assembly, on the complaint of Rev. James Smylie. It appears to me that the 
report of the Judicial Committee, on this complaint, is a singular document, and the action of 
the General Assembly, very strange. The committee state that there are three ways in which 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



41 



They are, 1st, " The consumption of time" required, and the "inconvenience" 
and " expense" to which the body (Assembly, or Synod, or Presbytery,) might 
be subjected, if the case were investigated ! But I find that considerate men 
ask — Were these really the reasons which induced a grave body of divines and 
elders, representing the wisdom of the whole Presbyterian Church in the United 
States, to dismiss a case, where truth, and ministerial standing and character, 

the complaint might be disposed of: 1st, to try the case in the Assembly ; 2d, to send it back to 
the Presbytery ; 3d, to send it back to the Synod. The language of the committee implies that 
these are the only constitutional ways of disposing of the case ; and yet, with singular incon- 
sistency, they proceed to recommend a fourth way, viz : to terminate the case by resolution.— 
Again, the last of the three ''ways" which they first mention, they pronounce the "wisest 
course;" and then immediately proceed to recommend another " course.'" What glaring incon- 
sistencies ! The only apology they give for not recommending what they call the " wisest 
course" is that it will be very tedious and troublesome, and the complainant said he would 
" submit" provided the committee, without his concurrence, should recommend to terminate 
the case without further trial, and the Assembly should adopt the recommendation. Now, 
what could the complainant do but submit? The Assembly was the last court of resort, and 
as a matter of course, the complainant could do nothing else but submit. Surely these are 
the lamest reasons, for what is confessedly an unwise " course," that ever were given by an 
intelligent body. Too tedious and troublesome to attend to a legitimate business of the 
Assembly ! What else did we pay their expenses and send them up to Richmond for, but 
to attend to legitimate business, when properly brought before them? What would be thought 
of a civil court, before which a tedious and litigated case was brought, should it say that 
the case was too tedious and troublesome, and therefore dismiss it ? The other reason which 
the committee give is equally as lame. Mr. Smylie said he would " submit" to the Assembly. 
When, as a matter of course, he could not do otherwise than submit. Evidently Mr. Smylie 
did not give his consent to have the case terminated as it was. I confess, Messrs. Editors, 
that as a member of the Presbyterian Church, I am exceedingly mortified at the action of 
the Assembly in this case. I have no personal feelings in the case of Dr. Scott. I have 
read the published testimony in the case, and had I been a member of the Presbytery at the 
time of trial, I should have voted with the majority for the acquittal of Dr. Scott, on the 
ground that whether guilty or innocent, the testimony brought out on the trial was not 
sufficient to convict him. And unless the new testimony, which Mr. Smylie professed to 
have obtained, would materially change the aspect of the case, I think the complaint could 
not have been sustained by the Assembly. But the Assembly ought to have heard the new 
testimony, and issued the case. r Jhat they have not, will, I think, do much harm in the 
southwest. It bears the aspect that Presbyterians are determined to stand by and defend 
each other, right or wrong. I have always rejoiced in the republican character of our church 
government, and had supposed that it furnished the best security which human governments 
could furnish ; that impartial justice would be done in all cases, after a fair and impartial 
trial. I still believe that the fault in this case is not in our form of government, but in 
the officers who were charged to administer it. Yours, &c. JUSTITIA. 

Another writer in the same paper, of Sept- 9, 1847, speaks as follows: 
Case of Rev. Dr. Scott again.— The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church/is certainly 
a learned and venerable body— but how learned soever and venerable, it makes no pretensions 
to infallibility. This is fortunate, for some of its acts would destroy its pretensions. The 
Presbyterian Herald of the 29th of July, contains an article on the case of Rev. Dr. Scott.— 
There is much good sense in that article— it is to be regretted that it is so short. Permit 
a few words more to be added. A very respectable portion of the southwestern church was 
not fully satisfied with the verdict rendered by the Louisiana Presbytery in the case or Dr. 
Scott. If the General Assembly had examined the case judicially, and confirmed the decision , 
the church would have been satisfied, the Presbytery would have been sustained, 'and Dr. 
Scott would have been without reproach. As it now stands, Dr. Scott is not relieved, the 

6 



43 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



were greatly compromited, when the petition of the complainant was simply that 

the case might be investigated by the proper tribunal — and when the Assembly- 
had only to say to the Synod or Presbytery — Take it. and dispose of it? What 
a precedent may the present action furnish to Presbyteries and Synods ! In any 
future case, they may inquire — Is the testimony " voluminous?" Will an in- 
vestigation require 11 time," and subject to " inconvenience/' and " expense ?' 

Presbytery is not sustained, and the Assembly has brought upon itself the want of confidence 
of many, for settling an important case in a summary way, because "of the voluminous nature 
of the testimony, and of the difficulties attending the case." Dr. Scott had a right to expect 
better things at the hands of his brethren of the Assembly. He is a conspicuous man, pos- 
sessed of much talent and much zeal. His character is dear to him and his friends : and 
to refuse to give him the benefit of the well informed and judicial opinion of the Assembly 
was certainly unkind. The Presbytery of Louisiana had a right to expect belter things. — 
For many days it toiled through this case, and finally concluded, that the testimony brought 
out on the trial was not sufficient to convict him. The Presbytery has been censured by many 
for this decision. It had a right to look to the Assembly to confirm the decision, if correct, so 
that when accused of partiality to one of its members, it might refer to the opinion of a large 
Assembly, composed of strangers to the aceused. Now that reference cannot be made, the an- 
swer is, " the Assembly confirmed the decision in ignorance : it was too tedious and troublesome 
to investigate V The Rev. James Srnylie had a right to expect better things. He is a man 
remarkable for his kind and gentle spirit, and for his great love of truth and righteousness. — 
This venerable old gentleman, at his own expense, and with an earnest desire to have every 
thing put right, went to Richmond, and was induced there to submit to have the case disposed of 
" without either remanding, or adjudicating on it." We learn from the public prints, that an 
interview with Mr. Smylie was had, in order that all might be done "consistently with the 
rights of Mr Smylie." This was a strange proceeding. What rights had that gentleman after 
the case was before the Assembly? He had aright to lay his complaint before that body; at 
that moment his right ceased, and the obligations of the Assembly commenced. If his complaint 
was not regular, the Assembly had a right to cast it out ; if regular, neither the Judicial Com- 
mittee nor the Assembly had a right to consult and compound with any man about the suppres- 
sion of the case. Dr Scott was not charged with an offence against Mr. Smylie— it was no 
personal matter— but with an offence against the church, against God. Mr. Smylie was simply 
the agent to lay the case before the highest court Having done so, it went out of his hands, 
and became the duty of the Assembly to know, by patient investigation, whether a lower court of 
the church had done its duty to the whole church, in pronouncing the accused, not guilty. To 
compound felony, is, by the common law, punishable by fine and imprisonment. We learn from 
the Princeton Review, that in pursuing this course, the Assembly was of the opinion, that 
" all the ends of justice would be gained, and the peace of the church promoted." Doubtless the 
Assembly acted with good intentions, but not wisely. It is but another instance of doing 

wrong that good may come. By the course pursued, all the ends of justice are not gained. 

Dr. Scott did not reeeive justice ; he is deprived of the mature opinion of the Assembly. Those 
who are not satisfied with the decision of the Louisiana Presbytery, feel that the ends of justice 
are not gained. The Presbytery has a right to feel that justice has not been done to it. Nor is 
" the peace of the church promoted." There are many good members, who think'thatja wound has 
been inflicted on the church. They think that the Assembly has " healed the hurt of the daugh- 
ter of my people slightly, saying peace, peace, when there is no peace." They think the breach 
has been "daubed with untempered mortar." They desired the opinion of the Assembly; but 
they desired it after a full investigation of the case. Further, the Assembly adopted the report of 
the Judicial Committee, containing a rebuke of the Louisiana Presbytery, for having the speeches 
in the case of Dr. Scott printed. Suppose it was wrong to have them printed, yet , with all respect, it 
was no business of the Assembly's ; that point was not before them ; it was no part of Mr. Smylie's 
complaint ; it was no part of the case of Dr. Scott. It was an act of the Fresbytery after the 
case was closed. What right had the Assembly to travel out of the record to find fault with the 
Presbytery ? Or even if the resolution for the printing of the speeches could be made, by violent 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



43 



Then give it the go-by. This is the precedent furnished by the General As- 
sembly of 1847 ! This is one of their potent reasons ! 

2. But another reason for not ordering an inquiry, is, that " instead of resulting 
in practical good, it might produce great excitement and consequences injurious 
to the peace and edification of an important section of our church." 

This is indeed remarkable. What reason had the Assembly to fear that no 

construction, a part of the case of Dr. Scott, yet how did the Assembly know that there was such 
a resolution in the minutes of the Louisiana Presbytery? As the Assembly did not sit in a 

judicial capacity," the records of the Presbytery were not before the body in evidence; and 
in no other capacity had the Assembly a right to examine them. It is true, the records of the 
Presbytery were properly in the hands of the Judicial Committee; but if a weak, or ignorant, 
or prejudiced committee recommend an unconstitutional action, the learned body should strike 
it out of the report before adoption. As the rebuke did not come from the proper authority, or 
in a proper way, the Presbytery stands unrebuked. So much, supposing we did wrong, But we 
have yet to learn that the Presbytery did do wrong. The General Assembly, the Synods, and 
the Presbyteries, have a right to sit with open doors. They bave a right to publish their pro- 
ceedings, and they exercise that right annually, by publishing all, or any portion of their pro- 
ceedings. To censure an independent Presbytery for exercising an inherent right, is an arbitrary 
assumption of authority not possessed by a General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. — 
Whether it is expedient at all times to exercise the right, is another question ; but the question 
of expediency is lodged in the body exercising the right. In the present case, the last body that 
should give an opinion on the question of expediency, is that body which confesses it did not 
look into the matter, because " of the voluminous nature of the testimony, and of the difficulties 
attending the case." As this rebuke was extra-judicial and arbitrary, of course it can have no 
other effect than to awaken the suspicion that the Assembly was misled ; the case of the accused 
was slurred over, right or wrong, and the Presbytery was sacrificed as a peace offering to the First 
Presbyterian Church of New Orleans. P. 

The flatter article quoted above, from the "Presbyterian Herald," is accompanied with the 
following remarks by one of the editors, signed "l.," by which is understood, the Rev. A. B. 
Lawrence : 

" Case of Dr. Scott. — We very freely insert the article of our correspondent " P.," who is, we 
understand, a clergyman of high character at the South. Though in the Synod and in tbe General 
Assembly the case came under our notice, we felt unwilling, on account of some delicate concerns, 
to remark upon it in any shape. The peculiar course of the Judicial Committee, in attempting to 
divide the labor of investigating the merits of a complicated cause, we did hope would not be a 
subject of remark. We perceive, however, that it has attracted attention, and it is not our province 
to keep it from the public. We do anxiously hope, however, that unless some benefit can be hoped 
for from discussion, that the subject will be allowed to pass without further agitation. l." 

Who this "clergyman of high character at the south," is, I have not been informed, nor do I 
deem it important to inquire. His views, in the main, 1 consider just and well timed. His inti- 
mation of my having " compounded a felony " with the General Assembly, in agreeing with that 
body to dismiss my complaint without adjudication, I have noticed in the preface to this pamphlet. 
My purpose in introducing this editorial notice is to inquire of the editor : 1st, what he means by the 
"peculiar course of the Judicial Committee, in attempting to divide the labor of investigating the 
merits of a complicated cause ?" The report of this committee gives no intimation of their 
"course," in this respect, nor was any intimation of it given to the Assembly, so far as I heard. 
What was their "course" in this matter? What was there "peculiar" about it? How did the 
editor obtain the information ? I hope he will answer through the medium of the "Herald." 2d. 
What does the editor mean by the following sentence: " Though in the Synod and in the General As- 
sembly, the case came under our notice, we felt unwilling, on account of some delicate concerns, 
to remark upon it in any shape ?" It is of no consequence to me to know what were the " delicate 
concerns" here alluded to. They may have been wholly of a private nature. But I should be 
glad to know what the editor means by his forbearing "to remark upon it in any shape." This 
seems to convey the impression, that, both "in the Synod and in the General Assembly," the editor 



44 HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 

p ractical good would result from an investigation to ascertain the truth ? What 
1 ed them to think " great excitement" " might" be produced ? Who would be- 
come excited ? Have the innocent any thing to fear from an inquiry into their 
conduct ? Had not the Presbytery of Louisiana acquitted Dr. Scott — and was 
there any proper cause to fear that injustice would now be done him by that body 
in any new matter that might come before them ? This reason, certainly, pays 

had nothing, personally, to do with the case — did not even " remark upon it in any shape." Now 
itis well known, that Mr. Lawrence was chairman of the Judicial Committee, "in the Synod," to 
whom my complaint was referred ; that he brought in the report of that committee upon it, by the 
adoption of which, the Synod dismissed the complaint, without adjudication ; and that, in present, 
ing the report, (as I have been informed by those present,) the chairman did even " remark upon 
the case," in some "shape," whether he was willing, or " felt unwilling " to do so. Furthermore, 
itis well known that Mr. Lawrence was also one of the special committee of three, "in the Synod," 
to whom Mr. Lyon's memorial, wi:h all its startling disclosures, was referred ; that the report of 
this committee, in which he coincided, took no notice of the several new issues of veracity which 
were raised; that when this report was made, "in the Synod," Mr. Lawrence, and others, (asl 
have learned.) did "remark upon" that, too; and that the Synod, adopting this report, passed over 
the grave charges of that document, giving them the go by. Mr. Lawrence's name is appended to both 
these reports ; and a special responsibility rests upon those who thus, personally and officially, were 
prominent "in the Synod," touching all these matters. From all these facts, I am at a loss to 
know what he means by his not remarking upon the case " in arty shape," " in the Synod." Will 
he please explain? 3d. Even "in the General Assembly," it seems, though not on the Judicial 
Committee to whom the case was referred, his " delicate concerns" did not prevent him from as- 
certaining that the "course" of that committee, "in attempting to divide the labor," &c, was 
"peculiar" — a matter which, so far as I know, was first made known through his paper. The 
editor hopes "the peculiar course " of that committee "would not be a subject of remark." O n 
the contrary, I hope, if there is any thing "peculiar" in their "course," worth remarking upon, "in 
any shape," that the editor will reveal it — especially, as he has given the first intimation that 
there is something behind the curtain. 

Besides the foregoing articles from the " Presbyterian Herald," showing dissatisfaction with 
the course of the General Assembly, I have since learned that the Presbytery of Louisiana, at 
their stated meeting in Oct. last, (1847,) also expressed decided disapproval of that course. I 
was providentialiy prevented from attending that meeting, and had no voice in the matter, though 
the action of the Presbytery, in the main, coincides with my own views. I have obtained from the 
Stated Clerk, a certified copy of the minute of the Presbytery in the case, which is as follows: 

" The committee on the minutes of the General Assembly, further report, that they findon 
pages 385 and 3?6, proceedings in a judicial case, which, in the opinion of the committee, call for 
the notice of the Presbytery. The business referred to, is the adoption of a report of the Judicial 
Committee of the Assembly on the complaint of Rev. James Smylie, against a decision of this 
Presbytery in the case of the Rev. Dr. Scott. The Assembly, in adopting that report, dismissed the 
said complaint, without either acting or securing action on its merits, although the said report de- 
clares the said complaint to be in order, and says it was carried up "in a regular manner" to the 
Assembly. 

" While, as a Presbytery, we would entertain the most profound respect for the decisions of the 
supreme judicatory of our church, and would by no means be understood as assuming the preroga- 
tive of censuring their acts, or judicially reviewing their proceedings, yetyour committee deem it 
always to be the privilege of any Presbytery, calmly and respectfully to'express their opinion of 
the wisdom and propriety, or otherwise, of any of the proceedings of our superior courts. This 
has been frequently done in the history of our church. The proceedings of the Assemblies of 1837 
and 1838 were noticed by nearly or quite all the Presbyteries and Synods in the church; and ap- 
p rcval or disapproval was passed, and entered on their records. In the present instance, while as a 
Presbytery, we should express no opinion on the merits of the case complained of, your committee 
are of the opinion that the peculiar disposal of the said complaint by the Assembly, was unconsti- 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



45 



a left-handed compliment to what the Assembly style " an important section of 
our church," and is unworthy to emanate from the supreme judicatory. But 
suppose " excitement" would have been produced — Is that a sufficient reason for 
sanctioning the burial of truth? Did the Assemblies of 1837 and 1838 fear 
excitement when the truth was at stake ? Must the church be rent asunder 
upon matters of doctrine, and yet when it is a mere question of morals, affecting 

tutional, and therefore unwise and injurious to the interests of the church, as well as unjust to this 
body, to the accused, and to the complainant. 

"Insupportof these positions, your committee offer the following reasons. They deem this ac- 
tion unconstitutional — 

"1st, Because the constitution expressly says : (Formof Govt., ch.12, 4) 'The General Assembly 
shall receive and issue all appeals and references, which may be regularly brought before them 
from the inferior judicatories.' As the term ' complaints ' is not used in the chapter on the Gen- 
eral Assembly, and as it is universally admitted that complaints of judicial acts may be made to 
that body, it of course follows, that the provision just cited mii8t apply to complaints as well as to 
appeals and references. Your committee deem this provision to be imperative and not discretion- 
ary. The courts of the church, are, (under divine authority) created by, and are the agents of, the 
church, or whole body of believers. These courts were created for specific purposes, and to dis- 
charge specific duties. These duties are defined in the constitution. In regard to all complaints, 
appeals, references, &c, when in order, that instrument declares definitely what shall be done, 
namely — that the court "shall receive and issue" them ; but it nowhere says that any judicatory 
may dismiss them, without a hearing on their me; its, when regularly carried up. In this respect, 
the responsibilities of our ecclesiastical and civil courts are parallel. The government of our 
church, like our civil government, is republican or representative, all ecclesiastical power, under 
the divine Head of the church, residing primarily in the church at large, by whose voice ecclesias- 
tical courts are created and sustained. Our civil institutions are similar. The people create 
judicial tribunals, civil and criminal. The duties of the courts are defined by law. When cases 
are brought before the courts of original or appellate jurisdiction, they are bound to give them a 
hearing, and to decide the matters at issue. They are constituted and paid for this very purpose ; 
and the judge who should refuse to issue a case upon its merits, would be liable to impeachment. 
The same responsibilities apply to our ecclesiastical courts. Their judicial duties are clearly de- 
fined; and the discharge of them, in the way pointed out, is imperative. 

"2d. This action is deemed unconstitutional, because it directly destroys a fundamental principle 
of Presbyterian Church government, viz : that of appellate jurisdiction. The Presbytery, Synod 
and Assembly, are appellate courts. If any of these courts may constitutionally dismiss a case, 
regularly brought up, they all may; if they may do so in one case, they may do so in any case, 
and in all cases ; if they may do so when the decision has been to acquit, they may when it has 
been to condemn ; and thus, the appellate character of our form of government, may be entirely 
subverted: whereas, if the duty of "receiving and issuing" all appeals, complaints, &c, be 
binding, as the constitution plainly implies, and if the duty be performed, then the appellate char- 
acter of our government is preserved, and in every case we may safely trust that at least an 
attempt at doing justice will be made. 

" 3d. According to the genius of our government, no judicial case is deemed to be constitution- 
ally " terminated," until it has been regularly carried up through all the courts to the highest, and 
a decision rendered thereon in each court, if any person choose to exercise his rights in appealing 
or complaining. The only exception to this is where a case may be referred by a lower, directly 
to a higher, or to the supreme, passing by an intermediate judicatory ; and even in such an event, 
the court of last resort is bound by the constitution to "receive and issue" the case. The case 
under consideiation originated in the Presbytery; it was carried to the Synod by complaint; the 
Synod gave no decision upon it, but permitted the complaint to be carried to the Assembly, and 
thus provided for final action on the merits of the case. Such action by the Assembly^was the 
more necessary, as the Synod had permitted the case to go up without issuing it ; but ^declining 
such action, the whole adjudication has been necessarily confined to the original|court, and[the 
Assembly have thus defeated one of the wisest and most valuable provisions^of the Presbyterian 



46 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



only ministerial character and piety, must the supreme judicatory hug her fears 
and dread a little " excitement?" What a falling off in ten years ! « Tell it 
not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askelon!" 

But what were the 'particular "excitement and consequences injurious to the 
peace and edification" of the church which were apprehended ? The Assembly 
could scarcely have used this language, without attaching to it something of 
defmiteness. What special ebullition did they fear ? Had they been told the 
same thing that a certain member of the Presbytery of Louisiana had declared, 
before the Assembly met, — that if the case of Dr. Scott were sent back for 
investigation, his church would bolt, and withdraw from the Presbytery and be- 
come independent? Was such a fear expressed, either verbally or in writing to 
any members of the Assembly ? Perhaps he who expressed his opinion to the 
chairman of the Judicial Committee can answer. Was he written to, or counseled 
with, on the subject ? Was this one of the " injurious consequences" which was 
seriously dreaded ? Was it really the fear of losing that church from its fellow- 
ship, that frightened the Assembly out of its propriety ? I have seen other 
judicatories who have had to do with this case, though I am sorry to acknowledge 
it, led from what I conceived to be the plain path of duty, by giving way, apparent- 
form of government. This is virtually and practically carrying out Congregationalism, by making 
our superior courts only advisory. This action is therefore deemed to be a practical subversion 
of the constitution, and of very dangerous tendency. 
" Your committee deem this action of the Assembly unwise and injurious, — 
" 1st, Because it furnishes a dangerous precedent to all the courts in the church. The main 
reasons given by the Assembly for dismissing the case, viz: — that the testimony was "so volum- 
inous" that it would "require a great consumption of time," and subject the court to "great 
inconvenience, and no inconsiderable expense "—are reasons, which, in any similar case, might 
be pleaded by any court in the church, and this action of the General Assembly might be appealed 
to , as sanctioning a dismission on such gronnds. All that would be needed to secure such a result, 
would be, that any party on trial, should render his case " so voluminous" and tedious that it 
would demand considerable "time" and "expense" to issue it. These reasons furnishing a 
foundation, and the present action of the Assembly a precedent, a dismission would be natural ; 
and thus, instead of "all the ends of justice" being "gained," they would be most signally de- 
feated. The example afforded by this action of the Assembly, is therefore believed to be of very 
injurious tendency. 

"2d. Your committee deem this action unwise and injurious, because unjust to this body, to 
the accused, and to the complainant. If the" decision of this body, acquitting the accused, was 
right, it was the duty of the Assembly to have sustained it. That they have not done so, is un- 
just both to the accused and the Presbytery, as the propriety of the Presbytery's decision has been 
questioned by many, and needed therefore, and was entitled to, the sanction of the supreme judi- 
catory. If the Presbytery's decision was wrong, the Assembly's action was unjust to the com- 
plainant, and injurious to the purity and peace of the church. 

" For the foregoing reasons, your committee deem it due to all concerned, as well as in order, 
by this testimony, to preserve the integrity of that ecclesiastical constitution which we have all 
sworn to uphold and defend, to express and record our disapproval, as a Presbytery, of the above 
named action of the General Assembly, while we studiously refrain from expressing any opinion 
upon the merits of the case or the complaint under consideration." 

The foregoing is a true copy of the minute adopted, in the matter to which it refers, by the 
Presbytery of Louisiana, at its stated meeting, Oct. 22d, 1&47. 

Attest: BEN J. CHASE, Stated Clerk. 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL [OF DR. SCOTT. 



47 



ly, to similar fears ; but I would fain hope that the General Assembly, though 
composed only of mortal men, were not influenced by apprehensions of so terrible 
a nature ! What they could have been, however, I am utterly at a loss to 
determine. 

3. The resolution adopted, closes with these words : " This General Assembly 
do hereby terminate this unhappy case, without any farther judicial trial." On 
being inquired of by some of my friends, soon after my return home, I was at a 
loss to answer, precisely what is meant by this part of the report. I am 
constrained, in turn, to inquire, — What did the Assembly mean by the word 
" terminate ?" If they meant simply to express a dismissal of the case from 
their consideration as brought up by complaint, it seems to me that they might 
have chosen a less equivocal term. On the supposition that this is the meaning, 
it may be asked, — What right have a General Assembly, or any other judicatory 
of our church, to dismiss a case " without a hearing," which they admit to be 
" regularly brought up," as is admitted in this instance ? Are not all our 
appellate courts bound by the constitution to hear and issue appeals and complaints 
when in order, respectful, and important, or to take such action as will secure a 
hearing before the proper tribunal ? Look at the constitution. It says of the 
Assembly, in specifying its duties : " The General Assembly shall receive and 
issue all appeals and references, which may be regularly brought before them 
from the inferior judicatories." (Form of Gov. ch. 12, Sec. 4.) This requisi- 
tion is imperative ; and I cannot see how it can be disregarded without a palpable 
violation of the constitution. The case in question before the Assembly, was 
brought up by complaint ; but it is the doctrine of the Biblical Repertory, if I am 
rightly informed, that the same general rules apply to both complaints and 
appeals. If this be sound doctrine, (and it seems to be the plain doctrine of the 
constitution,) the Assembly had no right to dismiss this case " without a hearing^' 
upon its merits. The Assembly determined on this course, however, and I sub- 
mitted to it, as the only thing I could do, leaving them to " assume the responsi- 
bility" of such action, "without my concurrence." 

But the word " terminate" may be intended to mean in its present connection, 
something more than a mere dismissal. They may have intended by it to provide 
against any future action on this case. Let us look at this point. If they meant 
by "terminate," "without any farther judicial trial," to foreclose any and all 
future investigation of those matters brought to light in Mr. Lyon's memorial, 
which are entirely new and distinct from any points which came before the 
Presbytery, and which have never been adjudicated by any tribunal — if they 
meant to preclude the Presbytery, (before whom these matters have never 
appeared in any shape,) from judicial inquiry, if deemed necessary, into charges 
which seriously and vitally affect the reputation of one of their members — then, 
with all due respect to the wisdom of the body, I think the Assembly have 
travelled entirely out of the record and transcended their authority. 

The language of the resolution will perhaps admit of either construction ; but 
still, the terms chosen seem to indicate that the latter is the meaning intended. 



48 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



If so, I conceive the Assembly are at fault. The Presbytery of Louisiana have 
now the same constitutional authority to institute process, and try the new 
issues presented inplr Lyon's memorial, as that body had before the Assembly 
terminated the case ; neither have the Assembly deprived by their action, nor can 
any future Assembly, by any action they may take, deprive, constitutionally, the 
Presbytery of this original, inherent right. These are new points — they make 
new issues — they form a new case — it has never been tried — and the Presbytery 
may commence process at any moment they choose. No possible decision of any 
other judicatory in the Presbyterian Church, can constitutionally prevent the 
exercise of this right. 

Nor did the Assembly necessarily " terminate" the case, so as to preclude " any 
farther judicial trial" even upon the matters complained of to the Synod against 
the Presbytery — matters affecting the case which had been tried. If the highest 
court had decided the case upon its merits, by either sustaining or not sustaining 
that complaint, then, truly, the case which was tried by the Presbytery, would 
have been judicially terminated. This would have been a legal and authoritative 
" conclusion of the whole matter;" for no appeal to any ecclesiastical body could 
have been taken from such decision of the supreme court upon the merits of the 
case, whether right or wrong. But the Assembly gave no such decision. They 
passed over the merits of the case entirely ; the papers were not read to the 
Assembly ; they did not even sit in a judicial capacity ; they dismissed the case 
without adjudication. The Synod did the same ; the original complaint was not 
read to that body. The case was not met, and action taken upon its merits, by 
either body. By the Assembly, it was simply dismissed — not necessarily 
terminated. Nor was the dismissal based on any constitutional grounds. The 
Assembly say, in their report, that the case had " been brought in a regular 
manner up to this General Assembly;" and they specify "three ways" in 
which the case " might be disposed of," any one of which, had it been adopted, 
would have opened the way to constitutional action on its merits. This shows 
that the complaints were in order, and all the steps taken, legal. The dismissal, 
consequently, (if that was all that was intended by " terminate,") was based solely 
on grounds of expediency, regarding "time," "expense," "inconvenience," 
" excitement," &c. 

Now in view of this action, can any one believe that it would not be strictly- 
in order to present these complaints before the next General Assembly ? That 
Assembly would be fully competent to act, notwithstanding the last did 
"terminate" the case in their peculiar way ; and on the ground that the case had 
never been adjudicated upon complaint, that body would be fully authorised to 
remand the case to the Synod, or to the Presbytery, or to issue and decide it upon 
its merits ; but not to " terminate" it in the sense and manner supposed to have 
been attempted by the last Assembly. The only way in which the highest court 
can justly " terminate" such a case, so as legally to prevent " any farther judicial 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 49 

trial," is by trying and deciding it. Then the case would be terminated 
constitutionally.* 

4. This report contains this sentence : " It is to be regretted that the Presby- 
tery sanctioned, by their authority, the publication of the speeches on both sides 
of the question." This is a strange sentence to appear in such a place. What 
had the Assembly to do with the matter ? The publication, or not, was a con- 
cern of the Presbytery. Nor did it form any part of my complaint. This point 
was not before the Assembly in any shape. The Assembly, in noticing it, med- 
dled with that which did not belong to the case, but which they chose to mix up 
with it. And besides this, the records of the Presbytery containing the sanction 
of that publication had been before the Synod, (the only body, if any, to notice 
the matter,) and by that body had been approved ; and the records of the Synod 
containing that approval were before the Assembly, and had been approved by 
the Assembly, without exception, previous to the presentation of this report ! It 
is well known that it is the province of Synods, and not of the Assembly, to re- 

* It is plain that the doctrine here maintained is true, viz:— that it would be perfectly constitu- 
tional for the next General Assembly, should they see fit, to entertain my complaint, notwithstand- 
ing the last Assembly did endeavor to " terminate " the case— and also, that this position is fully 
sustained by the action of the last Assembly itself, in the celebrated " McQueen case." The 
complaint of Mclver and others, in that case, was also dismissed, but for very different reasons 
from those given for the dismissal of my complaint. Mine was dismissed on account of "ex. 
pense," "time," "excitement," "voluminous testimony," &c; the other was dismissed on the ground 
that the Assembly of 1845, in the opinion of the last Assembly, had "judicially entertained' 1 
and had "pronounced judgment in the case," &c, which was regarded as final, the Presbytery 
of Fayetteville (McQueen's,) having carried out the recommendation of the Assembly of 
1845. For these reasons, therefore, the Assembly of 1847 decided that Mclver's complaint 
" cannot be entertained by this House, and is hereby dismissed." (See Minutes of Ass., 1847, pp. 
395,396.) If these reasons were sound, of course, (as the majority thought) the dismissal was 
constitutionally demanded. A respectable minority thought the decision of 1845 was sot judicial 
nor final, and therefore dissented from the decision of 1847. The complainants coincided in 
this opinion. They therefore gave a notice to the Assembly, upon which the following minute 
was entered^ 

" A communication was read from the complainants in Judicial case, No. 1, acquainting the 
Assembly with their submission to the late decision in said case, and at the same time, inas- 
much as the Synodical and Presbyterial acts, against which they had complained, had neither 
been reversed or sustained by any General Assembly, with their intentions to renew the com- 
plaint, should they see fit, to the next General Asembly, for final adjudication." (Minutes of 
Assembly, p. 400.) 

From this it appears, that the Assembly, by entering such notice in their records, recognised 
the right of the complainants to carry their case before the next Assembly, "for final adjudica- 
tion," and that that Assembly might adjudicate it, if they should see fit, notwithstanding the 
decision of the last Assembly, or that of 1845. Now, if the next Assembly may entertain 
Mclver's complaint, for the reasons given, (that the Presbyterial and Synodical acts complained 
of " had neither been reversed nor sustained by any General Assembly,") then, for the same 
reasons, the next Assembly may entertain my complaint; and if this may be constitutionally 
done, in the former case, where in the esteem of many, and by the decision of the Assembly of 
1847, the decision of 1845 was regarded as judicial and final, much more may it be done in the 
latter case, where no decision of any Assembly has been wade upon it, notwithstanding the 
last Assembly did sagely suppose they could "terminate" the <c*se '* without any farther 
judicial trial." 

7 



50 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



view the records of Presbyteries, and approve or censure. But here, the 
Assembly step over the Synod, and administer rebuke to the Presbytery, for doing 
that which the Presbytery had an inherent right to do not only, but that which 
the Synod had approved, and which the Assembly too had already sanctioned in 
their approval of the Synodical records ! — a matter which was not even named in 
the complaint, and which had no possible connection with the case in the judicial 
form in which alone it came before the Assembly ! — and a matter which was not 
before the body in any way ! — a singular proof and a most striking illustration of 
the fact, that through some wonderful fatuity, or (what is more probable,) under 
the influence of some potent agency, the Assembly were much more disposed to 
meddle with that in which they had no proper concern, than to do that tor which 
the body was expressly constituted ; to award censure without authority, than 
to secure justice by a due exercise of it ! 

Now if on this point, the Assembly really meant to censure the Presbytery, 
(which scarcely admits of doubt,) it may well be asked, — On what was their 
right to do so, founded ? The constitution gave them no right whatever. But if 
the Assembly merely wished to express their " regret," without assuming any 
authority to censure, why then, of course, they had a perfect right to do so ; and 
such expression is harmless. They might, in the same manner, " regret" the ex- 
istence of our war with Mexico, or the despotism of the government of Austria ; 
but they would render themselves ridiculous should they assume an authority to 
censure " the powers that be" in either country. The publication of a part, or 
the whole, or none, of the proceedings of a Presbytery, must as a right, belong to 
the Presbytery alone ; and in ninety-nine cases in every hundred, doubtless, the 
expediency of publishing, can best be determined by the body in whom the right 
is lodged. For aught the Assembly knew, the Presbytery of Louisiana, may 
have had ample reasons for sanctioning this publication. Under all the circum- 
stances of the case, therefore, I can fully adopt this part of the report, with a slight 
alteration, as expressing my own views : " It is to be regretted that the" As- 
sembly disapproved, " by their authority, the publication of the speeches on both 
sides of the question" — especially, as this was a matter which did not properly 
come within the range of that authority which that body had over the case, nor 
was in any way connected with my complaint.* 

; : *f 

* The Presbytery of Louisiana, at its meeting in Oetober last, unanimously adopted the fol- 
iowing minute, on this point: 

■" The order of the day was taken up, viz: the reception of the reports of our commissioners 
to the last General Assembly, whereupon, it was Resolved, That we cannot approve of the votes 
of our commissioners to the General Assembly, adopting the following sentence in the report of 
t,be Judicial Committee, on the case of Dr. Scott, viz:—' It is to be regretted that the Presbytery 
sanctioned, by their authority, the publication of the speeches on both sides of the question'— 
inasmuch as the matter there alluded to, was not regularly before the General Assembly, and did 
not fall within their province Vo decide." 

True extract from the minutes of the Presbytery. 

Attest: BENJ. CHASE, 

Staled Clerk. 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 51 

CONCLUSION.* 

I have now discharged what I have regarded as an imperative duty, in giving 
to the public a history of this important case. Its importance lies in the 

* What in my opinion ought to be done in this case— what the interests of truth, the honor 
of religion, a regard to ministerial standing and character, a proper self-respect among the 
members of the various judicatories before whom this case has been brought, and what both Dr. 
Scott and Mr. Lyon ought to regard as due to themselves— what the Presbytery cf Louisiana 
Bhould desire, as also the Presbytery of Tombeckbee— what all these loudly demand should even 
now be done, I will state in few words: 

1. Mr. Lyon should be required, by the proper ecclesiastical authority, to produce the numer- 
ous letters in his possession, which bear upon this case, and which have been kept back ; es- 
pecially, (1.) the two "private letters " referred to in his testimony, {Trial, p. 33,) which it now 
appears he was willing to produce, but for the opposition of Dr. Scott ; (2.) the letters he wrote 
to the gentlemen from whom these "private" letters were received in answer; (3.) the 
letter he wrote to Dr. Scott early in Oct., 1844, near or at the time he published his card of Oct. 
3d; (4.) the letter he wrote Dr. Scott in Nov., immediately after he had been informed he had 
"misunderstood" him ; (5.) the letter he wrote Dr. Scott after he had seen the publication in 
Jan., 1845, about " immediate measures," which statement so " alarmed" him that he was prompted 
to write, "remonstrate," and inquire about it ; (6.) all other letters which Mr. Lyon has written 
to Dr. Scott or any other person or persons, since this controversy began, which can throw light 
upon the case ; (7.) all the letters which Mf. Lyon has received from Dr. Scott, bearing in any 
manner upon this subject— as, the letter of "Oct. 9, 1844," that of "Nov 28, 1844," (both men- 
tioned in Mr. Lyon's memorial,) that written in reply to Mr. Lyon's inquiry about " immediate 
measures," &c, that received by Mr. Lyon in July, 1845, immediately after the first memorial 
had been presented to the Presbytery of New Orleans, and any other letters from Dr. Scott, 
touching this case, which he may have received; (8.) the correspondence which has taken place 
between Dr. Scott and Mr. Lyon, since the Synod of 1846, respecting the memorial which Mr. 
Lyon presented to that body, and in which it is understood Dr. Scott endeavors to explain some 
of the matters set forth in that memorial ; (9.) any letters which Mr. Lyon may have in -his 
possession, written to or received from the Rev. Dr. Lapsley. of Nashville, Tenn., or any other 
person, there or elsewhere, relating to this case. As far as Mr. Lyon has any of these letters 
in possession, he should produce them— in all cases, the originals. 

2. Dr. Scott should be required, by the proper ecclesiastical authority, to produce, as far as he 
has them in possession, any of the foregoing letters, and all others he may have in keeping, 
written to or by himself, or written to or by any other person or persons, which can elucidate 
any of the matters involved in this case— in all instances, the originals. 

3. The proper tribunal to receive these documents, and all other reliable information which 
can be obtained, would be, in my judgment, the Synod of Mississippi, as Dr. Seott and Mr. 
Lyon, (the two whose reputations are most deeply involved in'this case,) are members of differ- 
ent Presbyteries in that Synod. 

4. When the Synod should become possessed of all these documents and information, they should 
fearlessly take that course which the interests of truth and righteousness demand, viz:— secure, 
by virtue of the authority belonging to the body, such a judicial scrutiny into every point in this 
case, as would bring out the whole truth— either by an investigation before the Sy nod, or before 
one or both the Presbyteries to which Dr. Scott and Mr. Lyon belong. 

5. The members of our church judicatories may rest^assured, that until some such vigorous 
measures are adopted and prosecuted to a sueeessful termination, the deepest stain will rest 
upon our ecclesiastical escutcheon. Men may smile at this, if they choose— or they may vent 
their indignation at the man who dares to raise his voice or pen for truth — or they may cry " per- 
secution," as has been done from the very commencement of this investigation— and still it is 
true, that the greatest dishonor will rest upon our holy religion, just as long as these matters are 
permitted to sleep. I envy not the moral perceptions of that man who cannot conceive that a 
higher and nobler motive may have moved the breasts ofthose who have called for an investigation 
of this case, than a wish to "persecute and put down" any individual. God knows that higher 
aims have prompted them. Nor do I envy that man's value of truth, who is willing, calmly to 



52 HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OF DR. SCOTT. 



principles involved in it, both as regards the main issue in controversy, and as 
respects the course of the ecclesiastical bodies to whose scrutiny it has at least 
been respectfully submitted. No man can duly weigh these principles, viewed 
in both these aspects, without being aware that the case is one of serious 
moment in its intrinsic nature, and one whose singular disposal, by the courts of 
the church, will have a deep influence upon the cause of truth and righteousness. 
That this influence will be far from salutary, I have not the shadow of a doubt. 
That the prominent actors who have contributed to bring about these strange 
ecclesiastical results, will live to regret their course, I have as little doubt. 

If Truth, as the image of being and of fact," be not one of the sturdiest pillars 
of Jehovah's throne — if its betrayal be not one of the greatest sins of which his 
ministers can be accused — if its defence be not one of the most imperious in the 
line of ministerial duties — if to institute a judicial investigation be not one of the 
weightiest obligations which can bind our ecclesiastical courts, when the most 
serious charges are made against any of our members — and if a silent acquies- 
cence or active connivance at stifling inquiry into such charges, when they are 
"accompanied with strong presumption of truth," be not, whether done by 
individuals or ecclesiastical bodies, most thoroughly displeasing to God, and well 
calculated to excite contempt among men of the world against the gospel and its 
ministers — then, I confess, I am greatly mistaken in what I have been accustomed 
to regard, through a long life, as the prime duties of the church, to God, to truth, 
to her own character, and to the religious and moral well being of the world. 

Let what may be said, this is well known : The most serious charges have been 
made, and now stand, against a clergyman's veracity — some of them have never 
been investigated in any way — they have been made the subject of formal com- 
plaint, in a legal and respectful manner, to the highest tribunal of the Presbyterian 
Church, with a simple request that they be inquired into, and a decision given 
upon them, either by the superior or one of the inferior courts — and the complaint 
has been dismissed, upon the plea that its entertainment would require " time," 
and cause "inconvenience" and "expense," and " might produce excitement," 
&c; and this decision has been published to the world in the official proceedings 
of the body ! How must these things be regarded by men of the world — by 
many in the church — by the God of truth !* 

sit down and fold his hands, while the truth is deeply buried, without raising the voice of earnest 
remonstrance. As a church, we are suffering. We show to the world too little regard for the 
principles here involved to command its respect, while just enough has been done to reveal the 
darkness which enshrouds the truth, and yet so little as to exhibit the pusilanimily of the eccle- 
siastical courts and insure the contempt of high minded men of the world. 

* The New- York Observer, in noticing the proceedings of the Assembly on this case, said:— "Dr. 
Scott was charged with lying and heresy, and after a long and patient trial was acquitted, leav- 
ing not a suspicion of guilt m either of these matters." The Biblical Repertory says of the action 
of the Assembly on this case : M We sincerely rejoice in this termination on every account, and 
not least, because it restores, without reproach, to his laborious and important work, in that great 
and needy field, a man whom we regard as an'eminently able and faithful minister of the gos ■ 
pel." In view of the undeniable facts set forth in this pamphlet, these statements are remarka. 
ble, on two accounts,— 1st, They show how lamentably ignorant of the real merits of this case 



HISTORY OF THE TRIAL OP DR. SCOTT. 



53 



If any step shall hereafter be taken to bring any of the matters involved in this 
case before the ecclesiastical tribunals, (so far as I now see, such is my advanced 
age,) it must be done without my agency. I have carried the case before the 
highest court of the church ; and there, (so far as now appears,) my ecclesias- 
tical duty may have ended. With this publication, I shall possibly regard my 
whole duty in the case done. It may be thought that in making this publicatu n> 
I have gone beyond my duty. That I shall incur censure in some quarters, I 
confidently expect; but upon that matter my mind is at rest. There are duties 
which are sometimes demanded, of a public nature, which sink to naught all 
private considerations. This I conceive to be one of them. I have attempted 
to discharge it in the fear of God, and I leave the issue with Him — believing 
most firmly, that, as regards this case, " Judgment is turned away backward, 
and Justice standeth afar off ; for Truth is fallen in the street, and Equity cannot 
enter. Yea, Truth faileth ; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a 
prey : and the Lord saw it, and it displeased Him that there was no judgment.'* 

even those persons are, who think they understand it so thoroughly, that, as public journalists, 
they may, with great apparent confidence, undertake the ; formation and direction of public 
opinion with reference to all that has a bearing upon the several issues involved. They say the 
result attained by the Assembly leaves "not a suspicion of guilt," and "restores without re- 
proach," &c, notwithstanding all the disclosures here made. I can only explain this on the 
charitable supposition, that these journalists were profoundly ignorant of the merits of the case. 
2d. Their statements are remarkable, from the fact that they accord so much sagacity to the As- 
sembly, and take so little note of some things which they must have known transpired before the 
Presbytery. For example: — The lower court, (though they voted an acquittal on the point,) 
found Dr. Scott guilty, on charge third, alleging " improper spirit," and censured him severely 
in their " reasons for the decision," (! !) by expressing " their strong and distinct disapprobation 
of the spirit and temper exhibited by the accused." {Trial, p. 276-) On charges first and third, one 
member voted "guilty," (Trial, p. 267.) On the "fifth specification of the first charge, and also thai 
part of the third specification of the third charge which relates to the exhibition of improper 
spirit," another member voted " guilty." (Trial, p. 268.) These are among the results to which 
the Presbytery arrived, after a laborious and patient investigation of several weeks But when 
the case comes before the Assembly, with all the astounding and new disclosures presented to 
that body, (which were entirely unknown to the Presbytery, till after their verdict was rendered,) 
the Assembly, in the esteem of these periodicals, (by a sort of intuition or legerdemain, I suppose 
it must have been,) by a simple vote, " terminating " the case, without investigation, as it 
was too "voluminous," are at once enabled to "restore" the accused to his former standing,. 
" without reproach,'' and " without" even a "suspicion of guilt" in any of the matters alleged 
against him 1 At least, such is the judgment of these profound journalists ! I recommend tc 
them to peruse this pamphlet carefully, and then to state, whether, in view of all the facts herein 
Bet forth, they can repeat, conscientiously, their former opinion. 



^MEMORIAL. 



The following is the Memorial of the Rev. James A. Lyon, several times referred 
to -in the foregoing pages. 

COPY. 

To the Reverend Synod of Mississippi, convened at Holly Springs, Oct. 88, 1846. — 
Bear Fathers and Brethren. — I beg leave respectfully to memorialise your reverend 
body, on a subject touching not only my personal interests as a minister and member 
of your body, but also the integrity of the constitution of our beloved church. 

The facts to which I desire to call your attention are briefly on this wise : In 
consequence of certain rumors injurious to the fair name and ministerial standing 
of the Rev. Dr. Scott of New -Orleans, the Synod of Mississippi at its last meeting 
held at Columbus, directed the Presbytery of Louisiana to file the charges prefer- 
red by " common fame " against the said Dr. Scott, and dispose of the case without 
delay. The Presbytery took action immediately in the premises, and I, with others, 
was cited to appear and give evidence in the case, — which I did. 

After several adjournments, the Presbytery met on the 6th of January last in the 
city of Baton Rouge, for the final argument and adjudication of the case. Mr. J, 
A. Maybin, Esq., a member of the New-Orleans bar, appeared as the advocate and 
counsellor of the accused ; and in the course of his very protracted speech on that 
occasion, selected me from amongst other witnesses, and without my presence o r 
knowledge, made my testimony the object of his severest strictures ; and as your 
memorialist sincerely believes, by misrepresentation, caricature, wit, and ridicule, 
endeavored, according to his own language, to " fix on me the brand that is marked 
on the forehead of Cain !" This, your memorialist conceives, was not onl^ unkind 
and unchristian conduct, but a violation of the constitution of our church, which 
provides that no member shall be tried without due notice and a fair opportunity to 
explain, defend, and otherwise protect himself— whereas, in the case complained of, 
I was assailed and virtually placed upon my trial, by the said J. A. Maybin, Esq. 
and that too in my absence, without notice, without my knowledge, and I need nqt 
add without my most distant expectation, or even the possibility of redress or repa- 
ration. And in the second place, the constitution expressly provides that " no pro- 
fessional counsel shall be permitted to appear and plead in cases of prpcess in any 
of our ecclesiastical courts/' This is a wise and salutary prohibition, since it pror 
tects the members and 1 ministers of the church from the abuse, defamation, and de- 
traction, of such as are not themselves responsible for what they say. So that your 

*The italics which appear in this printed copy, are from the underscoring of Mr. Lyon him- 
self, as it appears in the original; and the punctuation is. that of Mr. Lyon, as near as may be 
possible; and the abbreviations are those which appear in the original. 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



memorialist concludes, either that the constitution was violated in permitting the said 
J. A. Maybin, Esq,, " to appear and plead as professional Counsel " — or if he appeared 
and acted as H a presbyter " and a member of the body, then he can be held responsible 
for what I conceive and am prepared to prove to be his misrepresentations and false 
charges, injurious to me both as a citizen, and as a minister of Jesus Christ. 

Being informed that the report of the said speech of the said Maybin Esq , as 
published by the committee of Presbytery appointed to publish " the proceedings, 
&c." in the trial of Dr. Scott, was an unfair and incorrect representation of what 
he did say on that occasion — that it was indeed a caricature, and not owned byats 
reputed author — and also being exceedingly desirous that the church and people 
of God should no more be agitated and distressed on a subject that has already given 
them much pain, — I hoped, that by calling the attention of Mr. Maybin to his pub- 
lished speech, and reminding him of the injury done me by it, that he would make 
that prompt and effectual reparation which justice required and honor seemed to 
dictate, which I assured him would preclude any further excitement on this subject, 
so far as I am concerned. Accordingly I addressed to him the following letters on 
the subject, which I herewith insert on two accounts. First as evidence that I have 
done every thing within my power ,to effect an amicable adjustment of our difficul- 
ties, in the way prescribed by the gospel — and second, to disabuse your minds of 
certain misrepresentations and injurious impressions, which the publication of the 
"proceedings, &c," together with Mr. Maybin's correspondence with me, have 
brought to my knowledge. 

On July 8th, I addressed to Mr. Maybin the following short and friendly letter of 
inquiry, viz : 

Columbus, Miss>, July 8, 1846. 

Mr. J. A. Maybin, Esq., 

Dear Sir. — I have received by mail, through some unknown individual, a copy of 
the " proceedings, &c," of Louisiana Presbytery in the trial of the Rev. Dr. Scott, 
containing what purports to be a report of your speech on that occasion. By com- 
paring that speech with the letter you were pleased to write me, giving a brief out- 
line of your remarks in the defence, I am constrained to doubt whether the printed 
speech is a fair representation of what you said on that occasion. Still as that 
speech is published by the authority and sanction of the Louisiana Presbytery — 
and as I have not seen or heard of any disclaimer on your part, I have thought 
proper for my own satisfaction to inquire of yon whether the aforesaid printed and 
published speech is a fair and correct representation of what you said on that occa- 
sion ? If it is not, will you please to state wherein your spoken speech differed from 
the printed and published one ? By so doing, at your earliest convenience, you will 
confer a favor and greatly oblige your friend, and brother in the bonds of the gospel. 
Very respectfully, JAMES A. LYOM. 

After waiting several weeks without receiving 1 any answer, I again addressed Mr, 
Maybin on the same subject, as follows : 

Columbus, Mi. Aug. 17, 1846. 

Mr. J. A. Maybin, Esq., 

Dear Sir—On the 8th uli, I addressed you a letter of the following import, viz : — 
(I here transcribed a copy of %e letter just read.) 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



As I have received no answer to this letter, I have concluded that perhaps it 
never reached your city, or that you were absent from home, or being at home your 
business was such as not to allow you an opportunity to reply, or that you have re- 
plied and the letter has never reached me, or possibly you have thought it prudent 
on the whole to take no notice of my request. Presuming that some one or more 
of the foregoing reasons have prevented me from receiving an answer to my request ? 
I have thought proper to address you again on the subject, actuated I trust by the 
best and purest motives, sincerely desiring peace and amity, but at the same time 
impelled by a regard for you, the chh., the ministry, and by what I conceive to be 
a proper self-respect. 

That great injustice has been done me is manifest. By whom is uncertain. 
But it is clear that it has been done either by yourself in your speech in defence of 
Dr. Scott, before the Pres. of La., — or by the committee of Presbytery in publishing 
what purports to be your speech on that occasion. All I desire of you is that you 
inform me, whether the aforesaid speech, published by the authority and sanction 
of the La. Pres. is a fair or an unfair representation of what you did actually say 
on that occasion ? If it be an unfair representation I wish to know it for my own 
satisfaction and that of my friends. If, however, it be fair and correct, as the Pres. 
bytery have virtually declared it to be, then I feel constrained, out of respect for 
myself, my profession, the chh., my friends, and the good opinion of the world, to 
hold you responsible for it. If you will but recur to the printed speech, pages 322 
(bottom) 323 (middle) 324 (middle) 325 (top) 330 (middle) 337 (bottom) 338, 358 
&c, a few out of many references that might be made of a similar character, I 
trust that you cannot but perceive, that so great is the injustice done me, that if you 
allow me to possess even ordinary self-respect, you cannot expect me calmly and 
quietly to submit to it. Indeed, I presume I should but lower myself in your esti- 
mation if I did. Consequently, I feel assured that you need but to have pointed out 
to you wherein injury has been done me, in your name, to allow you an opportunity 
to make that prompt and effectual reparation which not only the spirit of Christiani- 
ty, but that high sense of honor which I know you possess, would dictate. 

The fact that you are a Lawyer, and were acting in a supposed professional capa- 
city, will neither excuse nor shield you, (even were it supposable you sought such 
protection,) as you will perceive by a reference to the constitution of our church. 
Our " Confession of Faith " has no knowledge of " professional counsel" in our 
courts. They are not " permitted to appear and plead " in such a capacity, as you 
will learn by reference to the " Discipline " of the chh., chap. IV. sec. XXI. This 
is a wise prohibition, because it protects the ministers and members of the church 
from the abuse and defamation of those who are not responsible themselves. Con- 
sequently, in the part you took in the defence of Dr. Scott, you acted in the capacity 
of a Presbyter only, and as such you are responsible for every thing you said on 
that occasion. I make the foregoing suggestions solely from a spirit of kindness, 
thinking that you may be laboring under a mistaken impression, as to what our 
Confession of Faith teaches on this subject. 

If I can have a declaration from you that the aforesaid printed speech is an un- 
fair, partial, and incorrect representation of what you said— showing wherein it 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



51 



differs from the true one — with the liberty of showing said declaration to my-frienda 
for their satisfaction as well as my own, I shall be satisfied ; and there shall be an 
end of this unpleasant affair so far as I am concerned. But on the contrary, should 
I not receive such a satisfactory disclaimer from you as aforesaid, I shall feel im- 
pelled by urgent incentives already set forth, to seek protection and redress by peti- 
tioning the Synod of Mississippi on this subject — which I shall do in a memorial at 
some length, embracing the history of this whole matter, and exposing the great in- 
justice that has been done me — at the same time praying that body to provide a 
remedy, which they will probably do, by requiring you to make good your published 
and uncontradicted charges against me, before my Presbytery — or in some other 
way extending to me effectual protection against such injurious defamation. 

I shall sincerely deplore, however, from various causes, the necessity of such a 
dernier resort. First, I am heartily sick of this profoundly disgraceful affair, from 
beginning to end. Second, It will deeply grieve me to agitate any more the 
church and people of God on a subject that has already given them so much pain. 
Third. Such a history of this affair as justice to myself will require me to make, 
will do my particular friend Dr. Scott no good, but might do him much harm. And 
Fourth. I do not desire to trouble you, and incur the displeasure of yonr friends in 
New Orleans, &c. &c. 

I sincerely trust, dear sir, that I shall have convinced you, that what I do, is not 
from a desire unnecessarily to agitate the church, or to protract a painful excite- 
ment — but from an imperious sense of the duty I owe to the church and her minis- 
ters, to myself, my family, my friends, and the world. 

I shall feel gratified if you will favor me with a prompt answer on this subject. I 
shall regard your silence, however, as an admission of the correctness of the matters 
of which I complain, and shall proceed in the premises accordingly. 

In the mean time I remain your brother in the bonds of the gospel, very truly, 

JAS. A. LYON. 

Mr. J. A. Maybin, Esq. 
New Orleans, La. 

Not long after writing this my second letter, I received an answer from Mr. 
Maybin written before its reception, informing me that he would examine again hia 
printed and published speech, and write me soon on the subject. Accordingly, in 
due time after this notice, I received a long letter from him, the substance of which 
is contained in this my reply, which I here insert for the double purpose of showing 
the indefatigable efforts I made to settle our differences peaceably, and also to make 
a statement of facts in vindication of myself, which the developments made by the 
publication of the " proceedings, &c., M together with Mr. Maybin's correspondence 
with me, render necessary : — 

Columbus, Mi: October 9th, 1846. 

Mr. J. A. Maybin, Esq, — 

Dear Sir,— Both your last favors, the one of August 21st, the other of August 
29th, came duly to hand ; and as you request an acknowledgement of their reception, 
as well as propound certain interrogatories which it is to be presumed you expect me 
to answer, I shall reply somewhat at length, especially as your letters, together with 
the published "trial of Dr. Scott," have revealed to my mind some new, and, to 
me, astounding facts, which justice to myself requires me to notice. 
8 



MEMORIAL OF MR. L¥ON. 



And first, I must confess it was with sincerest sorrow, I perused your last long 
letter. I had flattered myself that you would be able and willing to give me such an 
answer as would be satisfactory. All I desired of you was simply to state whether 
the published report of your speech in defence of Dr. Scott, was a fair or an unfair-, 
a correct or an incorrect representation of what you did actually say on that occa- 
sion, so far as related to the attack upon me. This I supposed, from what I had 
learned, was an easy task, a prompt and ingenuous compliance with which would 
have relieved me from the performance of a disagreeable duty, and saved the church 
from any other agitation on a subject painful to all its friends. But instead of the 
satisfactory answer which I had some right to expect, and most earnestly desired 
might be given, it is far from being satisfactory. This result, however, will give 
you no surprise : it is just what you expected. You say in the conclusion of your 
last — " I presume that what I have written will not be satisfactory to you." More- 
over, the equivocal character of the language you use, the guarded manner in which 
you express yourself, and your great inability to remember what you did say in the 
aforesaid speech, render it impossible for me to determine what construction you 
intend I shall place on your reply. You say in your letter of August the 29th : — " I 
will now answer your question as specifically as the case will admit. You ask me 
if the published report of my speech is a. fair or an unfair one of what I actually 
did say on the trial of Dr. Scott. At this distance of time, being nearly eight 
months since its delivery, my first speech occupying six hours if not more, the sec- 
ond about two hours, having only a brief of my points in the first speech, and none 
at all, and no notes whatever, of the second, tho' Dr. Scott had taken a few on the 
argument of Mr. Stanton, it is impossible for me to say that the language is alto- 
gether reported correctly or not." Here, sir, is the explicit declaration, that, " it is 
impossible for you to say that the language (of your published speech) is altogether 
reported correctly or not." Without intending in the slightest to question the cor- 
rectness of this declaration, I must confess it is to me remarkable, on several accounts, 
and-seems to betray an'unaccountable defect of both judgment and memory. For in 
the first place it is manifest that you had prepared yourself most carefully for the de- 
fence of Dr. Scott. The occasion was very exciting, and interesting, and well calcu- 
lated to rivet vividly on the memory, every thing said or done. And not only so, but 
according to your own admission, you repeated, or reviewed, on the second day, your 
argument of the first, — " I resumed, (you say) my argument on the next morning, 
and in order to refresh the memory of the court, and to preserve the continuity of the 
argument, I endeavored to review and condense the objections to your testimony,'' 
&c. In addition to this, you read a portion of the published speech, as appears from 
your letter soon after its publication. And yet, after all this, you seem utterly una- 
ble to recollect what you did say on that occasion ! But, if possible, your judgment 
seems more defective on this subject than your memory ; for you distinctly state 
that you spoke " rapidly," and that your " first speech occupied six hours, if not 
more " — " the second about two hours " — making eight hours in all, and yet it is 
" impossible for you to say whether " a report of that speech, which occupies only 
about one hour in the reading, " is altogether correct or not! !" One would think 
that a moment's reflection might enable any one safely to judge, that a speech which 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



59 



required " eight hours " rapid speaking- to deliver, could not be read in one hour. — 
Indeed, sir, I cannot but be struck with the remarkable defect of your memory in 
relation to this whole subject, in which we have all been so deeply interested. As 
an illustration of the correctness of what I say, take a few examples. You say — " I 
of course cannot remember all which I said, and nothing like it." You speak of the 
" impression on your mind," &c. Your published speech " appears to you" so and so. 
You " think " so and so. " I have no recollection of that part of the speech," &c. " I 
presume, for I cannot now speak with more certainty," &c. " I have not the slightest 
recollection of asking," &c. " I do not recollect the language," &cj " I have a very 
slight recollection of saying something,"&c. "This is my impression about the matter," 
&c. &c. These and similar admissions on your part, seem to betray a most remarkable 
defect of memory, insomuch that your letters to me in answer to my inquiries, are, so 
far as I am capable of judging, a perfect non committal. You neither positively affirm 
nor deny. 'Tis true, you sometimes seem to cast suspicion on the whole report of the 
speech. You say in your letter of August 2]st: "I never saw the report of my 
speech till it was published — not a line or word in manuscript or proof-sheet was 
ever exhibited to me, and I believe I may say, never offered to be exhibited to me."* 
And when you read a part of the published speech, — " the impression on your mind 
was, that it contained things which you did not say, omitted things which you 
did say, and transposed other things." " It appears to you to be, on the whole, an 
imperfect, defective, disjointed, and jumbled exhibition of your argument for Dr. 
Scott." " The Reporter has unintentionally misunderstood and erroneously exhibited 
your argument in that part," &>c, &c, &c. And notwithstanding these and like 
admissions, " it is impossible for you to say that the language is altogether correctly 
reported or not." Consequently, I am unable to determine what construction you 
intend I shall place on your letters, or what inference to draw from them,— whether 
to regard them as a disclaimer of the fairness and correctness of the reported 
speech or not, but conclude upon the whole, (especially as you yourself say that you 
do not expect your letters to be " satisfactory,") that you do not thus intend them to 
be understood. I regret, then, exceedingly, the painful necessity I am under to 
seek redress, for the injury done me by your published speech, at the hands of the 



* From the quotation here given by Mr. Lyon from Mr. Maybin's letter to him, the impression 
might be conveyed, that Mr. Maybin was dealt with unfairly respecting the publication of hia 
speech. I therefore give the following statement of facts, on the authority of one of the com- 
mittee of Presbytery who were appointed to publish the "proceedings," &c, in the Trial of Dr. 
Scott 1. Reporters were present, with the sanction of Presbytery, to take down the proceedings, 
speeches, &c. Mr. Maybin's speech was taken by them with his consent. 2. When the proceed- 
ings were being published, one of the reporters, at the suggestion of one of the committee, con- 
suited Mr. Maybin, respectinghis speech. The reporter requested him to look over his speech in 
the manuscript before it went to press ; Mr. Maybin declined. He then requested him to examine 
the proof sheets ; this he also declined. In both instances, he gave as a reason for declining, his 
defective eye-sight, adding that he presumed it would be done properly. 3. A few days before the 
publication appeared, Mr. Maybin conversed on the subject in the presence of several persons, and 
although he expressed some dissatisfaction at the expected appearance of his speech, yet head 
mitted in explicit terms, that he had been requested to examine the manuscript and proof sheets 
of hisspeech, but had declined it, for the reasons given above. If these facts are denied, I am in- 
formed the proof will be given, 



fiO 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



Synod of Miss : But as you have intimated, that when you are convinced that you 
have done me injustice you will not hesitate to make reparation, I will, as it is my 
sincere and most earnest desire to avoid any unpleasant collision with yourself, and 
any thing that would unnecessarily distress the church and people of God, once 
more in the spirit of kindness and christian forbearance, endeavor to present this 
subject before your mind in its true colors, and to point out to you, wherein you have 
done me injustice, which I have reason to hope and pray may yet arrest any further 
proceedings before ecclesiastical courts on this subject, 

And fiist, I will call your attention to the origin of this difficulty. You are lre- 
quent, liberal, and even witty in your charges, that I was the " originator " of this 
difficulty, and the cause of all your troubles; or in the language of your own cZas- 
sical wit, — that I am "the Pandora's box out of which all your troubles have sprung.'* 
" You were chiefly instrumental," (you affirm) " in bringing Dr. Scott into the 
position he was in." " But for you, all these agonizing troubles that have agitated 
the church of Dr. Scott, the public mind, ti e judicatories of the church, and now 
bring you and me into this unpleasant correspondence, would never have existed." 
** You were the author, I do not say intentional, of nearly all if not all our troubles 
and you could not but have expected that your testimony should be thoroughly dis- 
sected on so momentous a point, as the guilt or innocence of our Pastor," &c .&c. 

In answer to this, I would say, first — that even had I been the " unintentional " 
author of all those troubles, that was my misfortune, and no just reason, according 
to the laws of common humanity, much less of brotherly love, why I should be as- 
sailed, traduced, " dissected," and equally injured end distressed. This might be 
admissable amongst savages, where the " lex talionis " prevailed, but not in a civilized 
and christian community. 

But in the second place, since so much importance is attached to this charge, so 
repeatedly made, I deny that I am the " originator " of the troubles and difficulties 
of which you speak. 'Tistrue, sir, I have never taken this position before, because 
1 did not wish to appear to criminate Dr. Scott. And it is moreover true that I have 
sincerely regretted ever having repeated what I had understood Dr. Scott to say rela- 
tive to Mr. Clay's conduct on board of the boat ; and on this account I have reproached 
myself, and have perhaps appeared to acquiesce in the charge that I was the unwit- 
ting and unintentional author of this unfortunate difficulty, which from a spark be- 
came a great fire. And you and all the world know, that I have done every thing 
that honor, religion, or friendship could dictate, to make reparation ; — for which I am 
grieved to say, I have been but so poorly requited at your hands ! But since you 
compel me to speak plainly on this snbject, I unhesitatingly deny that I am the author 
of the grievances and troubles of which you charge me. I did repeat, 'tis true, to 
one or more particular friends in 'private conversation and under private circumstan- 
ces, what I had understood Dr. Scott to say relative to Mr. Clay's conduct on board 
of the boat ; and in no other way did I give publicity to this matter, until this report, 
not by my instrumentality or agency in any form or shape, as will appear in trie 
sequel, reached the public newspapers. And tell me, dear sir, wherein I erred in 
this ? Is there any law, rule, regulation, or custom, that prohibits a man from re- 
peating in common conversation, what he has heard in common conversation, unless 
secrecy is enjoined? Such a prohibition was never heard of. It would arrest on« 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



of the greatest sources of popular information and of the pleasures of social inter- 
course. Nay, it would break up the social circle altogether, and reduce mankind to 
a state of virtual monasticism ! Werein then am I to blame for repeating, in com- 
mon conversation, what I had thus received ? It seems that Dr. Scott frequently 
spoke of this matter, without enjoining secrecy : why had I not the same privilege ? 
Let me furthermore disclaim being the sole author of this report even as handed 
about in common conversation. The very same report substantially reached this 
place from Nashville, or its vicinity, representing Dr. Scott as its prime author, be- 
fore any newspaper publication was made. And it was in consequence of these 
reports, that Mr. Decherd wrote to Dr. Scott on the subject; to which he replied, not 
denying that he had seen Mr. Clay playing cards " on the Sabbath " — but of which 
letter Dr. Scott never gave me any notice. I had not the slightest intimation that 
such a letter was in this place until it had done all the harm it could do — until my 
enemies supposed they could detect a discrepancy between Dr. Scott and myself as 
to the time when the said conduct of Mr. Clay should have taken place. Then they 
fabricated out of street rumour a statement of their own, containing the substance 
of the reports, but miserably caricatured and exaggerated, and published it without 
my consent or knoicledge. This, sir, is the'true origin of the difficulties, &c, which 
you have so unjustly, nut to say ungenerously, attributed to me. If any one, save 
our mutual enemies, is to blame for the publicity of this report, it is Dr. Scott him- 
self, for writing a letter on such a subject, and under such circumstances, to this place, 
without my knowledge. Had I known of this letter in time, I have not the shadow of 
a doubt, but that I could have arrested and prevented all subsequent difficulty on the 
subject. This first newspaper publication confounded different reports, and misera- 
bly misrepresented what I had said — presented me in a false and injurious light, — 
and did me great injustice. Hence I was compelled in self-defence, and in obedience 
to the advice of my friends, of both political parties, to publish my card of Oct. 3d 
" in order to correct these misrepresentations." And of this fact, dear sir, you must 
have been apprised, as it appears from the testimony itself on which you descanted. 
Hence, when you represent me in your speech and letters as one who — " in the midst 
of great public excitement, on the eve of the election of the chief magistrate of the 
nation, caused by rumors of a highly injurious character to one of the candidates, 
should publish in the newspapers a card detailing the conversation which led to those 
rumors and excitement, &c. &c." — you do me great injustice — you misrepresent me 
— I will not say wilfully, as your eye sight is defective — but it has the appearance of 
being willful, since such a misrepresentation of the facts, is contradicted by the testi= 
mony which lay before you, as well as by other documents in your possession. I trust 
now, dear sir, that I have convinced you that you have done me injustice in attribu- 
ting to me, the " origin " and " authorship " of the troubles, &c, growing out of 
this difficulty. 

Another ground on which you assail me is that I had — " no distinct recollection of 
the time, the place, the circumstances and particulars of the conversation, &c." — 
One would scarcely think that you would have the courage to assail a man for a 
defective memory, when you have manifested such a remarkable failing in that fac. 
ulty yourself. But this aside, I must regard this a most flimsy pretence on which to 
attack a clergyman's character. Why, sir, should I have "a distinct recollection ?*? 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



of the time, place, and circumstances of this, anymore than any other conversation 1 
At the time this last conversation took place, the subject of politics was exciting to 
the utmost extent the public mind — it was the theme of constant conversation. The 
merits and demerits of Mr. Clay, his virtues and vices were discussed every hour in 
the day, in steamboats, stage coaches, rail road cars, canal packets, hotels, and every- 
where. There was nothing remarkable in the charge that Mr. Clay played cards, 
or gambled, or broke the Sabbath, or showed contempt for public worship, or did 
worse. Such charges I heard almost every day and hour during the summer that 
Dr. Scott and myself travelled together. The only thing remarkable about this par- 
ticular charge, was that Dr. Scott, my friend, my companion, my classmate, and 
brother minister had been an eye-witness to it. This impressed my mind, and this I 
recollected. But that I should not have a very distinct recollection of the time, place, 
and circumstances, is by no means remarkable, nor indicative of a defective or even 
careless memory. And were I disposed to be witty on a serious subject, I would ex- 
press my astonishment that one who could not recollect whether a printed speech 
which it takes but one hour to read, was the same whicli it took him six or eio-ht 
hours rapid speaking to deliver, should make a supposed defective memory a ground 
for assailing the testimony of a minister of the gospel! 

Nearly allied to the above charge of a defective memory, and perhaps a part and 
parcel of the same, is the assertion on your part, contained both in your speech and 
letters, that lam "contradicted by Dr. Scott when the place is designated" — allu- 
ding I presume to that part of the testimony where I state that I have M a slight 
impression" that the last time I -heard Dr. Scott speak on this subject, was some- 
where between St. Louis and Memphis, on our return home. I am at a loss to know 
by what authority you make that assertion. I am not able to find any such " con- 
tradiction " in the evidence given on trial. If it be there it has escaped my notice. 
Your information, therefore, on this subject, I presume must have been of a private 
and unlegalized character. And moreover, suppose, dear sir, there was a " contra- 
diction," whose word is to betaken? — and whose testimony preferred? Mine is 
positive, his negative. The presumption of the law therefore is if I mistake not, 
that he has forgotten. He may have spoken of this matter M to the far north," for 
aught I know, since it appears he has spoken of it at divers times and in divers 
places; but this is no evidence that he did not also speak of it again at or near St. 
Louis or Memphis. This accoids with the impression of both Dr. Scolt and myself, 
We have talked this matter over, and Dr. Scott himself recollects that in speaking of 
this subject, (he thinks somewhere in or about or near the above named places,) I 
made a remark, or an exclamation, or in some other way expressed my feelings, opin- 
ion, or understanding, which he says " he has often regretted he did not then request 
me to explain." And it is the opinion of both of us, if I am not mistaken, — and for 
my own part I have not a doubt of it, — that the impression was then and there 
made on my mind, that Mr. Clay "played cards on Sabbath morning* 

Once more. In your summary of the grounds on which you attacked my testi- 
mony you say that — " I contradict myself, or very much like it" — that " I appear " 
to contradict myself, &c. You do not assert positively in your letters to me, that I 
"contradict myself," but that I "seem " or "appear" to do so. Let me ask, dear 
?ir, if the "appearance" of contradiction is a sufficient ground for assailing any 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



€3 



man's testimony, much less that of an Ambassador of Jesus Christ, whose office it 
is to win souls, and persuade men to be reconciled to God ? Is there any conceiva- 
ble emergency that would justify such an attack on such grounds? This would scarce- 
ly be tolerated in the common courts of our country in the conduct of a common law- 
yer, making no pretensions to be governed by the holy sanctions of Christianity. How, 
then, do you suppose it will appear in the conduct not only of a professed christian, but of 
an office-bearer in the church of God, in assailing the character — not of a common vag- 
abond — not of a brother christian merely — not of the devoted friend of your friend 
and pastor only — but of a clergyman and minister of the same church and denomi- 
nation with yourself? ! I know not how my testimony may " seem "or " appear " to 
your understanding ; but I can inform you that it has been subjected to the scrutiny 
of counsel possibly as able, learned, and discriminating as yourself, — which, doubtless, 
is saying a great deal for them, — and not only so, but it has come under the careful 
review and examination of the officers of my church, and of my presbytery, one of 
the largest and most respectable in the Synod ; all of whom pronounce it an accurate, 
consistent, and ingenuous testimony. And, sir, I defy you, or any other assailer of 
minister's testimonies, to pick out or detect by honest and fair examination, the slight- 
est inaccuracy or inconsistency that would in the least degree invalidate it, in the 
estimation of honest, unprejudiced, and capable men. 

We shall now advance another step in the history of this affair. You charge me 
with not having taken sufficient pains to ascertain whether I had correctly under- 
stood Dr. Scott or not. You say — " I particularly commented on your not having 
employed all the means which you might to have been certain of the correctness of 
your version of Dr. Scott's statement before the publication of your card of Oct. 3d, 
before you started to Synod." In answer to this, allow me to remind you in the first 
place, that the publication of that card was due to myself alone. The question 
was not what Dr. Scott had said ; but what I had reported him to have said. In this 
I had been misunderstood, misrepresented, caricatured, and otherwise slandered by 
the public print. It was due to myself immediately to correct these misrepresenta- 
tions, &c. which were calculated to do me much harm — and hence the publication 
of my card. 

In the next place, I had no reasonable doubt as to my understanding of what Dr. 
Scott had said. I did not question in my own mind one part of the story more 
than an other. Why, then, should I wait to see or hear from Dr. Scott, to ascer- 
tain whether I had understood him correctly or not ? But, sir, I would inform 
you that I did take immediate measures to apprise Dr. Scott of all that w T as going 
on here. The first newspaper publication containing the fabricated and exaggera- 
ted statement, was sent to him so soon as it came out.* I also sent him my card 
which came out in the next paper, and with it a letter on the subject, calling his 
attention particularly to the whole difficulty. In confirmation of the above state- 
ment, dear sir, as you seem to doubt my memory, I have before me a letter in Dr. 

* II appears, by reference to publications previously made, that the "newspaper publication'" 
above alluded to, appeared as early as the u 26th of September, 1844," (see page 34 of this pam- 
phlet,)— and Mr. Lyon here states that he " sent" the paper to Dr. Scott immediately ; and also 
a letter, calling his attention particularly to the whole difficulty "— 1o which Dr. Scott replied un - 
der date of "October 9th, J844"— but made no correction. 



54 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



Scott's own hand-writing-, dated " 9th October 1844, New Orleans," in which he 
acknowledges the reception of the " Columbus Whig," containing the aforesaid 
report, charges, abuse, &c. — in which he expresses himself strongly against the 
abusive Editors, and complains of the conduct of Mr. Decherd in showing his pri- 
vate letter, &c. &e. — but he does not intimate that he had been misunderstood or 
misrepresented. But further still, — when Dr. Scott and myself met at Synod some 
two weeks after the date of this letter, the subject was again introduced, and some 
conversation had, — not a great deal was said, however, from the fact that we had 
but little opportunity to converse on the subject — it was a disagreeable and mortify- 
ing theme to both of us. (And in addition to this, I had good reason to believe that 
the whole matter was quieted. And it would have remained so, no doubt, but from 
the fact, that in the mean time a letter was received from Henry Clay by two young 
men, who had privately, and of their own accord, as I have been informed, fabrica- 
ted a statement of their own out of street rumour, sent it to Henry Clay, in quota- 
tion marks, as my statement, and requested his answer to the same, which came to 
hand during- my absence at Synod, which revived the excitement.) Nevertheless, 
we conversed two or three times on this subject, when I informed Dr. Scott of the 
harm our enemies were trying to make out of his letter to Mr. Decherd, the publi- 
cation of which had been called for by my friends, but which had been refused on 
the ground that it was " a private letter " &c. I therefore requested Dr. Scott to 
give me a written order for the letter, so that, if occasion should thereafter demand 
it, I could publish it. This written order he gave me, but he did not hint, or in any 
wise intimate that I had misunderstood or misrepresented him. You will perceive, 
dear sir, that I had good reason to believe that I had correctly represented Dr. Scott, 
and consequently that you have done me injustice in representing me, as careless and 
indifferent, as to whether I had correctly represented Dr. Scott or not. 

We shall now pass on to another very interesting point in this history. You say 
in your printed speech, (pages 323, 325) — " I cannot see any thing worth crediting 
in a man's evidence who comes into court and says that he heard Dr. Scott say so and 
so, and then afterwards thinks he misunderstood him." — " He takes the child of his 
own formation and destroys it." — If such language had been used by infidels, and 
corrupt unprincipled men, whose object was not truth, but to make one minister de- 
stroy another, I should not have been so much surprised — nay, it is just what I have 
been accustomed to hear from such characters. But when this hue and cry, or rath- 
er sneer, is used by a professed christian, an office-bearer in the house of God, and 
an Elder in the Presbyterian church, in relation to a minister of the Gospel, I confess 
to you, dear sir, that my amazement can only be equalled by my mortification. The 
natural inference from such language, is that you, instead of being rejoiced, are ac- 
tually vexed, that Dr. Scott and myself could explain and reconcile this difficulty 
without impugning each others motives, or impeaching each others moral character ! 
I cannot believe, however, that this, tho' the legitimate, is the intentional, meaning 
of your words. Such language, nevertheless, imposes on me the necessity of justi- 
fying myself in the position I took when I professed to be *•' satisfied " that I had 
misunderstood the meaning of Dr. Scott. 

Let me say then in the first place, that the very fact that Dr. Scott waa a clergy- 
man, and a minister of Jesus Christ, is presumptive evidence that be would not wil 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



65 



fully ^misrepresent the truth. Again — I was intimately acquainted with Dr. Scott, 
and had the utmost confidence in his integrity, insomuch that his simple declaration 
that he did not intend to make a wrong impression on my mind, would under 
ordinary circumstances be satisfactory. In this consists the very value of a good 
character. If character will not defend a man under such circumstances, pray what 
is it worth ? If we could always have the facts, proofs, and explanations at hand, 
then we should not need a character to sustain and shield us : — the facts, proofs, &c, 
would be amply sufficient without it. The inestimable value of character — its 
majesty and sublimity, — consist in its being a moral u Aegis," " a wall of defence," 
that will protect us in the absence of other defence and protection. Therefore, be- 
lieving Dr. Scott to be a good man, his simple declaration, under ordinary circum- 
stances, ought to be " satisfactory 1,1 to all those who place any faith in the value 
of character. 

But my conviction of the innocence of Dr. Scott, did not rest alone on this. He 
attempted to explain how the mistake occurred. A different explanation presented 
itself to my own mind, either of which, (notwithstanding your potent ridicule on 
this subject,) I think aught to be " satisfactory'" to any one, who was willing and 
anxious to be convinced. Moreover, every man in the whole world has a right to 
explain what he means by his words. Nothing but the bloody inquisition of " the 
Dark Ages" could wrest from him this privilege. So long as human speech is 
defective, and not a perfect transcript of the human mind, and so long as man is 
not a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart of his fellow man, so cer- 
tainly mistakes will sometimes occur. This is verified every day, and in all our 
intercourse amongst men. Why then should it be thought an incredible thing that a 
mistake should occur between Dr. Scott and myself? ! 

But in addition to ail this, dear sir, I carefully investigated the matter, and took 
pains to satisfy my mind wherever a difficulty presented itself. So soon as I received 
Dr. Scott's letter of November 2d, 1844, apprising me for the first time, that I had 
misunderstood him, relative to Mr. Clay's playing cards "ore Sabbath morning,' 1 
(which to me was very astonishing, as well as mortifying information, for I then 
saw the handle that enemies would make of this,) I then wrote to Dr. Scott, re- 
questing him, as well as I can recollect, (for I kept no copy,) to explain first — Why 
he did not apprise me of this misunderstanding in his letter of " October 9th ?" — 
Second — Why he did not disabuse my mind at Sijnocl ? Third — Why he did not 
fully answer Mr. Deeherd's letter ? To these inquiries, Dr. Scott rendered, to 
my mind, "satisfactory" answers and explanations. I have before me a letter 
from him dated "November 28, 1844, New Orleans," — in which he incloses 
Mr. Deeherd's letter, and explains why he ditlj not answer it fully — 
u supposing by time he meant — was it eighteen months or two years ago — and 
not as to what day of the week." In the same letter he explains why he did not 
mention this matter at Synod — He says : " Now as to why I did not mention this to 
you at Synod — -1, We had but very little conversation on the subject. 2, You never 
mentioned that point — playing on Sabbath. 3, I did not know that any thing was 
wanted from me on that point. I was reluctant to say any thing on the subject. 
4, I learned from you that the whole thing was dead — I did not wish to raise it," 
9 



86 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



I hope that you now perceive plainly, that I had the very best of reasons to be 
"satisfied" of the innocence of Dr. Scott, and that the humiliating charge, or rather 
sneer, that you have made in common with infidels and scoffers, that I was too 
easily satisfied — and that " you cannot see any thing worth crediting in a man's 
evidence who comes into court and says that he heard Dr. Scott say so and so, and 
then afterwards thinks he misunderstood him" — does me as well as yourself great 
injustice. 

There are only two remaining points on which you have assailed me ^that I feel 
it to be necessary to notice on the present occasion. The first relates to the charge, 
which I and all my friends have always promptly and decidedly repudiated, that of 
being " a violent political partizan," &c. This charge, sir, I have always repudiated 
with indignation. I regard it as the most injurious and dishonorable charge that 
has ever been made by my most malignant enemies. It is utterly baseless and false, 
nay slanderous. .Language would not express my contempt and scorn for the 
clergyman, engaged in pastoral duties, who should descend from his high and holy 
vocation, to dabble in the filth and scum of party politics. I fearlessly defy you, or any 
other man in the whole world, to point to a single instance in which I have exhibited 
myself as a " violent political partisan, ; " The fact is — so far is this degrading and 
vile charge from being true, that I never attend political meetings of any kind — not 
even mass meetings, where even ladies as well as gentlemen, are privileged to attend. 
I but seldom vote — and never voted strictly a party vote in my life. And up to the 
time this artful and injurious charge was first made in the public prints by individu- 
als of no standing or respectability in this community, strange to tell, but few of my 
most intimate associates knew what my political partialities were. These facts can 
be attested by this community, and all who know me. So that when you charge me 
with being « a violent political partisan," (which erroneous impression of yours, I 
fear has had too much to do with your attack on me,) you do that which is not only 
well calculated to injure and to prejudice my usefulness, but you add insult to in- 
jury. 

The only remaining point, and which you seem to consider the strongest of all, 
relates to my refusal to produce the private letters of my friends when called for by 
the prosecution. In your enumeration of the strong points on which you say, 
" I subjected myself to be attacked with propriety and force," you make the fol- 
lowing statement : M 3dly. And especially, you refused to produce on trial the 
letters of your correspondents, or show those parts which bore on the 
case : — wa s such -a refusal, I most respectfully ask, generous in you to 
your friend Dr. Scott, who was brought, through you into so much trouble, when 
they would have probably strengthened his case on that point, though they might 
have borne hard upon yourself ?" This, sir is to me a very astounding charge, and 
demands the following statement of facte. When I was first informed by Dr. Scott, 
by his letter to me of " November 2d, 1844," that there was a misunderstanding 
between us on the subject of Mr. Clay's playing cards on " Sabbath morning,'" I 
recollected that I had conversed with two gentlemen, and only two during our sum- 
mer's travel together, on this subject. Accordingly I wrote to them to ascertain 
whether they had conversed with Dr. Scott on the subject, and what their recoiled 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



6? 



tions of the conversation were. In due time I received answers from both these cor- 
respondents — one stating that he had conversed with Dr. Scott on the subject — the 
other that he had not. These were private Jetters, obtained for my own private sat- 
isfaction ; and no one had a right to call for them, or to expect me to produce them : 
first, because they were private, obtained for private purposes — second, if produced, 
it might have subjected one of the correspondents to unpleasant, as well as unexpeet- 
ed difficulty ; — and third, the letters were capable of being misrepresented by mali- 
cious persons who I well knew would not fail to seize on the opportunity to the 
injury of both Dr. Scott and myself. These reasons, sir, I hesitate not to believe 
will justify me in the eyes of all impartial judges in the course I took. But there 
is one reason yet behind, more potent than any of the preceding. It is this : — When 
Dr. Scott arrived in Columbus, previous to the commencement of his trial, I took 
him to my study, and exhibited to him, confidentially, these very letters, and told 
him, that notwithstanding I felt under no obligations, whatever, to produce them, 
and was confident my enemies in this place would try to misrepresent one of them to 
my injury, yet after all, for his sake, if he desired it, I would take upon myself the 
responsibility and produce them. He did not decide at that time, but afterwards 
desired that I should produce one of the letters, and withhold the other which de- 
tailed the account of the conversation had with himself. I explained to him, why 
this could not be done. I again exhibited the letters to him, and he once more per- 
used their contents, said that one of them might be used to his injury by his 
enemies, and advised me decidedly and emphatically not to produce them. And 
in obedience to this advice, as weli as my own sense of propriety, I pursued the 
course I did, which afterwards received his most cordial commendation. These, 
sir, are the simple facts in the case ; — and should they be called in question, which 
I do not for a moment expect, I have no witness to establish them ; but the revela- 
tions of the judgment day, to which I appeal, will verify them just as I have stated. 
How you came by the partial knowledge of the contents of these private letters, so 
as to feel at liberty to use it to my injury, is beyond my capacity to divine, since it 
would be doing Dr. Scott too great an injustice to suppose for a moment that he 
would have made the revelation under all the circumstances of the case.* 

*If ever there was disgraceful collusion between men to keep back the truth, here is furnished 
the most conclusive proof of it, between this witness and the accused, taking this confession to be 
true. 1st. They conspired to withhold letters, which unquestionably would have thrown light 
on the main charge on trial. 2d. One of these letters, would undoubtedly, have furnished testi- 
mony to the truth of the main charge against the accused, as he " said" it "might be used to bis 
injury by his enemies," and therefore he " advised" the witness " decidedly and emphatically 
not to produce them." The witness therefore withheld them, and his course " afterwards re- 
ceived" from the accused, " his most cordial commendation." 3d. Besides the above, this " ad- 
vice" and "commendation" of the accused, (as before stated in this pamphlet,) directly contra- 
dicts the statement of the accused to the Presbytery, (Trial p. 33,) that he was " very anxious" to 
bring these very letters ' into Presbytery, and that he would do all he could to bring them before 
the body." These revelations place the accused in a most unenviable light. But they also place 
the witness in an equally unfortunate predicament. 1st. He shows the accused these letters, and 
offers, notwithstanding they are " private" letters, to "take the responsibility and produce them." 
2d. But the accused objects. The witness then refuses to produce them, giving the reason that 
they are " private" letters from " private" individuals, and he does " not feel at liberty to betray 



08 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



Having gone over all the main points on which you have assailed me and my tes- 
timony, 1 cannot but indulge the gratifying hope that I have succeeded in exhibiting 
to you the great injustice you have, (I trust, unintentionally,) done me, and there- 
fore, may reasonably expect that prompt and effectual reparation, which I have un- 
derstood you to promise. 

As I have, I think with some degree of patience and forbearance, borne, met and 
answered, your attacks upon me, may I not expect the same indulgence whilst I 
point out a few particulars, wherein I think you have subjected yourself to censure 
m your conduct towards me ? 

In the first place, I blame you for premeditating and perpetrating an attack on 
me, on so important and interesting an occasion, behind my back, and without my 
knowledge or most distant expectation, so as to preclude the possibility of my being 
present, to hear, to explain, to defend, and otherwise protect, that which is dearer to 
me than life, my character. Would not such conduct be pronounced ungallant in 
the field, dishonorable in the council chamber, infamous in the exchange, and rep- 
rehensible every where, to say nothing of the violation of those high and holy 
principles of brotherly love, which require us to do unto others as we would have 
others do unto us? 

In the next place, it seems to me, judging from the style, manner, and contents, 
of your speech in the case of the trial of Dr. Scott, that you not only forgot the 
place where you were, but the sacred character you bore. Instead of remembering 
that you were in the court of Jesus Christ, and that you yourself appeared not as 
" a legal counsellor," which our confession of Faith forbids, but as "a Presbyter" 
and a member of that body, dealing with the characters of ministers of religion, you 
imagined yourself at the common bar of the country, in your capacity as a common 
lawyer, dealing with culprits and vagabonds ! On no other supposition can I satis- 
factorily explain the drift of your argument, the character of your language, and es- 
pecially the unreasonable, not to say low wit, so frequently introduced on so solemn 
an occasion, and in the presence of a body of serious and grave divines ! Doubt- 
less, this was the first time you ever appeared in Presbytery as an "ecclesiastical 
counsel," and therefore much allowance is to be made for your language, your wit, 
&c, from long custom and the force of habit. 

In the third place, you seem to have misimderstood altogether the true nature of 
a minister's character. A clergyman's character is tioo-fold — personal, and official, 
and you may destroy the one without injuring the other : — that is, you may leave 

their confidence," &c. {Trial p. 33.) And yet the witness had just before said to the accused, 
privately, according to his own confession, here made, that he would " take the responsibility and 
produce them" "if lie (the accused) desired it." 1 This shows that the reason which the witness 
gave the court for withholding the letters, was not the reason which influenced him. It was not 
the privacy of the letters— but the pleasure of the accused which stood in his way. From the wit- 
ness' own showing, the opposition of the accused was the " more potent" reason and the one he 
kept "behind!" 3d. Does Mr. Lyon really believe, what he here intimates, that Dr. Scott did 
not make "the revelation" to Mr. Maybin of " the partial knowledge of the contents of these 
private letters," " exhibited to him confidentially ?" Who else couid have made it? 4th. These 
disclosures about these letters, besides other important letters now brought to light, were made 
after the trial was over, by a witness who knew them at the time of trial, and who had taken a 
solemn oath, to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the best 
of his knowledge !" 



MEMORIAL OP MR. LYOM. 



m 



untouched his moral character as a man, a citizen, a neighbor, and at the same time 
ruin his clerical character, and effectually destroy his usefulness. This is what, it 
seems to me, you attempted in my case. You repeatedly disclaim making 1 any at- 
tack upon my moral character, — nay, you say many fine things in relation to my 
standing as a minister, &c. — but at the same time you ridicule, make charges, and 
otherwise assail me, in such a way as to destroy, if possible, my ministerial reputa- 
tion and usefulness. And if I have not sustained injury in consequence of the 
course you have pursued towards me, (which I have reason to believe I have not,) 
it has not been because you did not use the means to inflict it. 

In the fourth place, your cruel attack, according to your own acknowledgments, 
was unnecessary, wanton, and gratuitous, and betrays to my mind, an unaccount- 
able and fearful degree of prejudice, of the existence of which, perhaps you your- 
self were not aware. In proof of this, I would remind you, that our " Book of 
Discipline" ( ch. VI. sec. 6,) declares — " That the testimony of more than one wit- 
ness is necessary to establish any charge." You acknowledge explicitly, that — 
" I was the only witness for the prosecution to establish the charge against Dr. Scott, 
about the card playing by Mr. Clay, on Sabbath morning." Where, then, I ask, 
was the necessity of attacking me and my testimony, even supposing it had been 
adverse to Dr. Scott, whereas, in truth, it was decidedly in his favor ? But, sir, you 
admit that my testimony did not condemn Dr. Scott. " You acknowledge," you 
say, " in and out of court, that you were in error as to the statements of Dr. Scott — 
that you were satisfied that you were in such an error, and that your belief now was 
different." This, sir, you admit to be part of the testimony. So that indeed it ac- 
quits rather than condemns the accused. If, therefore, I was "the only witness," 
(whereas the constitution requires two,) and if my testimony did not condemn 
but acquit the accused, as you admit, where in the name of justice, humanity, 
brotherly love, friendship, and every other social principle that should govern the 
intercourse between man and man, was the necessity for attacking me and my 
testimony, and by ridicule, misrepresentation, caricature and all the tricks and de- 
vices characteristic of the legal profession, trying to " fix on me the brand that is 
marked in the forehead of Cain ?" I feel that I anl clearly justifiable in pronounc- 
ing your attack unnecessary, wanton and gratuitous, which can only be accounted 
for by the existence of a fearful amount of prejudice, and a disposition, perhaps 
unconscious to yourself, to retaliate the supposed injury done to Dr. Scott. 

Once more, it appears to me that you manifest a reprehensible carelessness and 
indifference as to the amount of injury you may have been the willing or the un- 
willing instrument in inflicting upon me. You inform me as late as August the 
21st, that — "You never saw the report of your speech till it was published" — and 
that even " your published speech you had never entirely had read to you" — and 
the little that was read, "made the impression upon your mind that it contained 
things which you did not say — omitted things that you did say, — and transposed 
other things." From this it is plainly to be inferred that you had but little regard 
for the injury your speech might do my character ; — and that you took no pains to 
ascertain whether these "additions," " omissions," and "transpositions," were 
calculated to do me harm or not. Nay — you say to me in your letter of August the 



7U 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



29th, that you do not admit, " any declarations or language which have the ap- 
pearance of imputing to you wilful or intentional disregard of truth, or any wilful 
or intentional wrong," — and yet, sir, it is manifest that your published speech does 
contain many such imputations, which you have never corrected nor publicly dis- 
claimed. Indeed, you acknowledge as much in your last letter, (page 5th.) You 
say — " The reporter has unintentionally misunderstood and erroneously exhibited 
my argument in that part, because it has the appearance of imputing to you wilful 
wrong." Here, dear sir, is the frank acknowledgment that injury is done me in 
your name, and yet you have never taken any steps to make reparation, or to rec- 
tify the wrong ! Hence I maintain that I have good reason to conclude that you 
manifest a reprehensible carelessness and indifference as to the amount of injury 
you may be instrumental in doing me. 

I shall conclude this hasty review by animadverting on one other cause of com- 
plaint. It is that of trifling with the sacredness of personal friendship. If there 
be pure enjoyment, aside from that of religion, to be found in this vale of tears, it pro- 
ceeds from confiding, unalloyed friendship. If there is such a thing as unmitigated 
anguish, aside from that which proceeds from a guilty, upbraiding conscience, it is 
caused by discovering that our confidence has been misplaced, and our friendship 
lightly esteemed. Indeed, so rare is this precious jewel, that philosophers have 
taught, aud poets sung, that it was but a " name," a "charm," a " shade," that had no 
real existence. I should consider it a great misfortune for an^ one to have his 
scepticism in this cruel sentiment shaken, — since if it be true, ignorance in this in- 
stance, would be productive of more happiness than knowledge. And yet the natu- 
ral tendency of the course you pursued, was to shake, if not directly to break down 
and destroy, the long, close, and intimate friendship that had existed between Dr . 
Scott and myself from our youth up ! Every body knew that I was the fast, firm , 
tried, and dauntless friend of Dr. Scott — that I had fearlessly maintained his cause, 
advocated his innocency, and defended his character, under all circumstances, and 
at all times, both publicly and privately. This I did contrary to the advice of some, 
under the frowns of others, and at the imminent hazard of losing some of the best 
pew-holders in my church. But I yielded not in the slightest degree in my zeal 
for Dr. Scott. I was his friend, his professed friend, his real and devoted friend, and 
I acted according to that profession. Had I swerved in the hour of trial — had I 
faltered in view of danger, real or imaginary — had I been frightened into silence or 
connivance at what I believed to be injustice to my friend, — I should forever have 
forfeited my own self-respect, and with it the respect of all the truly honorable and 
noble amongst men. As I had befriended Dr. Scott to the utmost extent of my 
ability, I expected a similar return from him. This was promised. My last parting 
request, when he left this place, was that he would see that no injustice was done 
me in my absence. This he solemnly pledged to do. I followed him with letters 
renewing the same request. He answered that it should be attended to. What, 
therefore, dear sir, think you, must have been my amazement, when the startling 
fact was at last forced upon my mind, that you, his friend, his elder, his counsellor, 
and adviser and his representative, made the assault upon my testimony, and by 
ridicule, wit, caricature, " et cetera, 1 " attempted to "fix on me the brand that is 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



n 



marked upon the forehead of Cain ! ."' When this rumor, so unexpected and 
improbable, not to say unnatural, and monstrous, first reached my ears, I 
was as a deaf man, I heard it not, I believed it not for a moment, I regarded it as a 
most egregious slander upon Dr. Scott, (whose approbation, I am happy to learn, 
you did not receive in the course you pursued.*) But at last when the cruel con- 
viction was riven into my heart, and I was forced without the possibility of escaping 
from the dreadful conclusion, to believe the report to be true, language is inadequate 
to express either the amazement or the grief I then experienced. 

I am now done. At all events I shall here end my imperfect review. I regret 
very much that time and circumstances will not allow me to be more full and com- 
plete in my statement of facts, which I feel sure that justice to myself requires. 
But lest I should weary your patience on this, to you " disgusting affair, on which 
you will have no more correspondence," I will here stop. I have written what I have 
written in haste, and with much difficulty, as I am and have been in very feeble 
health. I have endeavored to say what I have said in the spirit of kindness and 
christian forbearance. 'Tis true, I have penned much of it under a deep sense of 
the injury attempted to be done me ; and if expressions have escaped me that seem 
sharp or disrespectful, I trust you will have generosity enough to make all due al- 
lowance, for I assure you that I have endeavored to avoid giving you unnecessary 
offence. 

I cannot but hope, dear sir, that I have succeeded in convincing you, that great 
injustice is done me by your published speech ; and consequently, that you will 
make that effectual reparation which will put an end to all further agitation on this 
unhappy affair, so far as I am concerned. But on the contrary, let me say to you, 
without intending it in any wise as a threat, but solely for the purpose of giving 
you fair and honorable notice of my intention, that without such reparation as will 
be satisfactory, I shall feel painfully and reluctantly constrained to seek advice and 
redress at the hands of the Synod of Mississippi. Such a course I conceive to be im- 
periously demanded, first, in justice to myself, whose happiness and usefulness 
depend upon a fair name and an unsullied character, which it has always been my 
prayer and effort to maintain ; — and second, out of regard for the sacred profession 
of which I am but an humble member. If the wise and salutary provision of our 
constitution is set aside, and pleaders, stump-orators, and characters distinguished 
only ior their abilities to misrepresent, traduce, vilify, and defame, are admitted into 
our " ecclesiastical courts " to assail the character and injure the reputation of the 
ministers of Jesus Christ with impunity, without being hold responsible for what 
they say, then sir, I maintain that no one is safe ! Any clergyman, it matters not 
how high his standing, and how fair his reputation, is liable at any time to be drag- 
ged to trial, and the bar of the criminal courts called on to produce one to destroy 
him ! But, sir, I humbly trust, and sincerely believe, that there is not a single min- 

* It is very well known to the members of the court present, that Dr. Scott aidedhis counsel, by- 
taking notes, making references, reading portions of the testimony when called on, and in other 
ways assisting, as the counsel was severely handling Mr. Lyon's testimony ; while no symptom 
of disapprobation at the course of the counsel was manifested, so far as members perceived— on 
the contrary, some of the court noted the reverse of this at the time, and it was afterwards re- 
marked upon by them, with surprise. This is susceptible of the clearest proof. 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



ister belonging to our church, it matters not how humble or obscure he may be, 
that would submit to any such outrageous infraction upon our constitution. 

I regret that continued ill health, and pressing duties have unavoidably prevent- 
ed me from making an earlier acknowledgment of yours of the 29th August. 

I am, dear sir, very respectfully, your brother in the bonds of the Gospel of Jesus 
Christ. JAS. A. LYON. 

Columbus, Miss., 

October 9, 1846. 

I have received no intimation from the said J. A. Maybin, Esq., that he is disposed 
to make that reparation, which your memorialist conceives to be due, not only to 
himself individually, but to the said profession of which I am but an humble member. 
I would therefore respectfully inform you, that the snid J. A. Maybin, an elder in 
the First Presbyterian chh. in the city of New-Or:- ins, and residing within the 
bounds of Louisiana Presbytery, did, in his speech in the defence of Dr. Scott be- 
fore the aforesaid Presbytery, at the time and place already set forth, attack my tes- 
timony in my absence and without my knowledge, and did caricature, misrepresent 
and falsely exhibit the same to my injury and detriment. For illustration — In his 
printed speech, published with the "proceedings, &c," of the Louisiana Presbyte- 
ry, page 322, of the " proceedings," &c, he says — "Firsts hel^ (Mr. Lyon) " states 
he had a conversation with Dr. Scott in 1843 ; says his recollection is very indistinct 
on this point ; then thinks his mind is not clear, and then thinks he had but one 
conversation on this subject, and that was in 1844." This, your memorialist affirms 
to be incorrect, false, and slanderous, and is palpably contradicted by the evidence 
which lay befere him. (See answer to question 11th.) 

Again on page 323, the following statements occur, viz : — " Mr Lyon had but one 
conversation with Dr. Scott ; he never had but one conversation with him on the 
subject, and he says that in that conversation he heard him say that he saw Mr. 
Clay playing cards on the Sabbath." Again on the same page he says — " He " 
(Mr. Lyon) " comes to court, says he did hear him . y so, and afterwards that he 
did not hear him. Who would give credit to the testimony of that individual ?" — 
These declarations are utterly untrne, as will appear by examining the testimony. 
Once more, on page 324, the following language is used, viz : — " Look to interrog- 
atories 26 and 27, (Qu. 26,) Did you relate this conversation to any person at any 
time? (Ans.) I do not recollect relating any part of it. (Qu. 27.) Did you re- 
late to any person that part of it about Mr. Clay's playing cards on the Sabbath ? 
(Ans.) I did." This is a manifest perversion and misrepresentation, as will ap- 
pear by reference to the very answers which he pretends to quote. These are speci- 
mens of what your memorialist conceives to be his incorrect, false, and slanderous 
statements, as contained in the aforesaid printed and published speech, as will appear 
by an examination of the evidence given in the case, which your memorialist re- 
quests the Synod to examine for their own satisfaction. 

In view of the foregoing facts and considerations, your memorialist begs leave 
respectfully to submit to your reverend body the following overtures, viz :— 

1. Is it allowable, according to the spirit of our constitution, whose object it is, 
whilst it excludes the guilty, at the same time to extend effectual protection to the 
innocent, for any one to comment upon the testimony or conduct of any member or 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



n 



minister of the church, to the injury of his character or reputation, without giving 
said party due notice, so as to allow of his presence, and an opportunity to explain 
and defend ? 

2. If allowable thus to comment &c., is not the party thus assailing and com- 
menting, &c, responsible to the party injured, and to the church, for all that he says 
on such occasions ? 

3. And if responsible, what would be the proper course to pursue, in relation to 
the attack and false charges made against me by J. A. Maybin, Esq., since my Pres- 
bytery, at my own request, examined my testimony, and — " after full investigation, 
are satisfied that it is not either inaccurate or inconsistent" — thus virtually pronoun- 
cing the aforesaid charges of the said Joseph A. Maybin, Esq., untrue ? 

I beg leave, in conclusion, to state distinctly, that my object in propounding the 
foregoing overtures, is not that Mr. Maybin be tried, harrassed, or distressed. I trust 
I have forgiven him the injury he attempted to do me, not only because this is a dictate 
of the holy principles of Christianity, by which I profess to be governed, but also because 
I believe he made the attack under a mistaken view of his prerogative as apreshyter, 
thinking it was equally extensive and unrestricted as his prerogative as a common 
lawyer at the common bar of the country. But my only object is that such an ex- 
position of the constitution may be given, and such a precedent established, as will 
hereafter preserve the integrity of our constitution, and protect the members and 
ministers of the church from unexpected, iujurious, and wanton defamation. 
All which is respectfully submitted. 

Your brother in ecclesiastical bonds, 

Very sincerely, 

JAMES A. LYON. 
The foregoing is a true copy of a memorial of Bp. James A. Lyon, addressed to 
the Synod of Mississippi, and placed on their files. 

Attest: J. H. VAN COURT, 

Stated Cleric. 

The important disclosures of the foregoing memorial— bringing to light numerous letters 
and facts, (after the trial was ended by the Presbytery of Louisiana,) which, had they been 
known at the. time of trial, would unquestionably have produced a verdict of guilty on some of 
the points charged — these disclosures were made to the Synod of Mississippi, by Mr. Lyon, in 
October, 1848— more than a year ago. The letter embodied in this memorial, which embraces 
the gist of the whole, is dated " October 9th, 1846," and is addressed to Joseph A. Maybin, Esq., 
Dr. Scott's counsel in the case, and a Ruling Elder in his church. Mr. Maybin, no doubt, received 
that letter, by due course of mail. Mr. Lyon stated at the Synod of 1846, (as I have been in- 
formed,) that h3 accompanied the letter with a request, that Mr. Maybin would show it to Dr. 
Scott. He stated, also, that he wrote Dr. Scott, immediately, urging him to call on Mr. Maybin 
and see the letter. Both Dr. Scott and Mr. Maybin, therefore, were definitely informed of Mr. 
Lyon's developments, by Mr. Lyon himself, before he presented his memorial to the Synod. Be- 
sides this, both Dr. Scott and Mr. Maybin knew, soon after the meeting of the Synod of 1846, 
that Mr. Lyon's memorial had been laid before that body. Indeed, the whole religious public may 
have known this, as the proceedings of Synod thereon, were published in the " Protestant,' 1 '' of 
New Orleans, and other religious newspapers, immediately after the adjournment of the Synod. 
Thus it appears, that Dr. Scott, and at least one of his Elders, (and probably all of them, and 
other principal men in his church,) have had ample knowledge of all these disclosures for more 
than a twelvemonth— disclosures, which, in the esteem of many of his ministerial .brethren, fix 

10 



74 



MEMORIAL OF MR. LYON. 



upon Dr. Scott in several instances, the guilt of wilful falsehood, provided Mr. Lyon gives a true 
representation of Dr. Scott's letters, &c, which he says he has in his "possession," and in " Dr. 
Scott's own hand -writing." It is fair to presume, also, that Dr. Scott well knows that his min- 
isterial brethren entertain such views; and that they feel that religion, through him, is thus 
greatly suffering, and will continue to suffer, till these grave charges shall have been investiga- 
ted. 

Now, the point to which I wish to bring these facts, is this:— Admitting that the Synod of 
Mississippi and the last General Assembly, have neglected their duty, (as I think i have 
shown,) in not ordering an investigation of these new points, which have never come before the 
Presbytery, and were not known till after its verdict was rendered— has there been any wish 
expressed, or movement made by Dr. Scott himself, to have these new and grave issues in which 
his character is thus compromited, ecclesiastically investigated and settled? Have any o': 
his officers or members, expressed any such wish, or do they feel any anxiety ? Is it not as plain 
as if it were written in the light of a sunbeam, and with the point of a diamond, that, through 
Dr. Scott, religion must suffer, while these things remain as they are? How long are they will- 
ing that they should so remain ? Must an intelligent and high-minded community be forced to 
the conclusion, that, as they have permitted them to sleep during a whole year, with the facts 
well known, they will let them remain forever? If I were permitted to record a prophecy, I 
should give it as my opinion , and the opinion of many well acquainted with the case, that 
neither Dr. Scott, nor any of the officers of his church,— who well know the facts— will ever 
call for an investigation, before the proper judicatories of the church. 



BRIEF HISTORY 

OF THE 

TRIAL 

OP THE 

REV. WILLIAM A. SCOTT, D. D. 

FROM ITS COMMENCEMENT BEFORE THE LATE PRESBYTERY OF NEW 
ORLEANS, IN JULY, 1845, TO ITS "TERMINATION" BY 
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, IN MAY, 1847. 

WITH 

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS AND GRAVE DISCLOSURES 
NEVER BEFORE PUBLISHED. 



BY JAMES SMYLIE, 

A MEMBER OF THE PRESBYTERY OF LOUISIANA, 



" Judgment is turned away backward, and Justice standeth afar off ; for Truth is 
fallen in the street, and Equity cannot enter. Yea, Truth faileth ; and he that 
departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the Lord saw it, and it dis- 
pleased him that there was no judgment.'''' 

Isaiah lix. — an old and much neglected writer. 



NEW ORLEANS, 



1847. 





7 * ^'■V »wssw 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

Neutralizing agent: Magnesii 
Treatment Date: June 2006 

~ ^ PreservationTechnologies 



\* * Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 



A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 





-V 117'. «• V .»J^<W* J'J -»i , 




1$ 

« V % A*' 





D ^ V • •••• ^ -o* 



^ MAR 82 

N. MANCHESTER, WE°? ^ V 



INDIANA 46962 I 

i0 



o ..... 




